Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKERin the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Stock Conversion and Investment Trust (North Western Trust) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUDAN.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the constitutional position of the Sudan with respect to this country has been affected in any way by the changed status of Egypt; and, if so, in what respect?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The latter part does not therefore arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

ALLIED NATIONALS' PROPERTY.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for. Foreign Affairs if his attention has been directed to the judgment of the Court of Appeal on Friday, the 5th instant, in the case of White, Child, and Beney, Limited, v. Eagle Star and British Dominions Insurance Company, Limited, etc., when the Court decided that the birth of the present Soviet Government dates back to the 14th November, 1917, from which date its Acts and Decrees are inviolable in the Courts in this country, in conse-
quence of which property belonging rightfully to Allied nationals can be brought to this country and disposed of to other than its rightful owners; and whether any legislative action is contemplated to avoid such complications?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. No fresh legislation on this subject it at present contemplated.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Then are we to conclude that all acts of 'Bolshevists must now be upheld in this country; that any property so called "nationalised" may be brought here and sold with a legal title of possession? If that be so, does not the trade agreement with Krassin establish a trade in plunder, and is not Great. Britain its licensed mart?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: My hon. Friend knows that this is a difficult and very important question of international law, and I should be glad to have notice of any further questions in regard to it.

BRITISH FISHING VESSELS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 6.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has received any reports of the conditions affecting our fishing vessels in North Russian waters from the commanding officer of the gunboat recently despatched to those waters; and whether he has any information which he can give to fishermen intending to visit those waters?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, the Commanding Officer, His Majesty's Ship "Harebell," arranged with the Hull Steam Trawler Mutual Insurance and Protecting Company on the 2nd April for intercommunication between "Harebell" and British fishing trawlers, and so far as is known the arrangements made have given entire satisfaction to the fishing vessels. It may be added that the fishing season in these waters is practically over, and the sailing of British trawlers has now ceased.

ABYSSINIA (SLAVE TRADE).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is prepared to
lay upon the Table of the House any reports he has received in recent years upon the question of slavery in Abyssinia?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot at present add anything to the reply given to the Noble Lord on 1st March.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

OFFICERS (COMPULSORY RETIREMENT).

Colonel Sir C. YATE: 4.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what appeal tribunal will be available to hear the cases of officers placed on the retired list by the Admiralty under the Order in Council, recently issued, authorising the compulsory retirement of naval and marine officers for alleged peculiarity of temper or other defect not amounting to misconduct?

Mr. AMERY: All cases of officers who may be dealt with under this Order-in-Council will be considered by the Board of Admiralty, than whom there is no higher naval authority.

Sir C. YATE: Will there be no tribunal to inquire into the cases against these officers?

Mr. AMERY: In disciplinary cases of this sort we cannot have an independent and outside appeal tribunal. These matters will actually come before the Board of Admiralty itself for consideration.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Is it intended to keep this Order-in-Council as part of the King's Regulations? Is it intended to be a permanent Order?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Does it not put a stigma on these unfortunate officers?

Mr. AMERY: There is no question of a stigma at all. It provides in the Navy —as is already the case in the Army and Air Force—for dispensing with the services of officers who, without committing any gross misconduct deserving of a stigma, are not, on the whole, considered adequate to their work. No stigma attaches to them at all.

Viscount CURZON: 9.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the special scheme for the retirement of officers of the Indian Army has been published, he can now state how it is proposed to deal with officers of the Royal Navy surplus to requirements?

Mr. AMERY: Details of the scheme of retirement of surplus personnel were announced in Admiralty Fleet Orders, Nos. 1358 and 1359, dated 12th May, copies of which I am sending to my Noble and gallant Friend.

Viscount CURZON: Why does this Order apply only to captains and ranks below. Is the hon. Gentleman not dealing with the cases of flag officers surplus to requirements?

Mr. AMERY: I have already stated in answer to a question that we are dealing with the eases of flag officers.

NAVAL HISTORY OF THE WAR.

Viscount CURZON: 8.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can give the dates when volumes of the Naval History of the War were published; and whether he can give the dates when it is anticipated that further issues may be expected?

Mr. AMERY: The first and second volumes of the History of Naval Operations by Sir Julian Corbett, were published in March, 1920, and October, 1921, respectively. It is anticipated that the third volume will be published in the spring of 1923. No dates can be given at present as regards further issues.

GENERAL MESSES.

Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: 10.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the total saving effected on the average overhead rate authorised for general messes during the year 1921; whether such amount accrued to the Crown; and whether, since it would be a more equitable arrangement for money saved on the victualling of the men of the Royal Navy to be devoted to their interests, he will make an arrangement for that purpose?

Mr. AMERY: As regards the first part of the question, the men are messed by the Admiralty at such cost as will enable a good and sufficient dietary to be pro-
vided. There is no money allowance personal to the man, and the question of savings and their disposal does not, therefore, arise. The overhead rate, as authorised from time to time, to be worked to by the officers in charge of the general messes, is intended merely as an index figure of the maximum amount which the daily cost of messing a man under this system should average over a period.

PUNISHMENTS (SUSPENSION).

Sir T. BRAMSDON: 11.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the provisions of Article 8 of the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions do not allow for any punishment to be suspended pending the result of an appeal lodged in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Regulation, he will consider the advisability of amending paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions to allow of the sentence being suspended until after the appeal has been decided?

Mr. AMERY: The Article quoted by the hon. Member neither allows nor forbids the suspension of punishments pending the investigation of an appeal. The suspension of punishments is permitted under certain circumstances by Sections 53 (1) and 74A of the Naval Discipline Act.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: Is it fair for a man to be under the stigma until the appeal is concluded?

Mr. AMERY: My hon. Friend is dealing with an individual instance which is under consideration.

PEMBROKE DOCKYARD.

Viscount CURZON: 13.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is intended to dispose of Pembroke Dockyard; whether any offers have been received; and what is the total sum provided under the current Estimates for this yard?

Mr. AMERY: The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. The total amount of expenditure at Pembroke provided in the current Estimates is £352,830?

Viscount CURZON: Is it intended to retain the dockyard permanently on the Navy Votes or not?

Mr. AMERY: The reasons for which it has been decided to retain this dockyard are reasons of general national economy rather than Admiralty reasons of economy, and they have been fully stated here.

Dr. MURRAY: Are they not National Liberal economy reasons?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: In view of the special position of Ireland in regard to this dockyard, will not the hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of not closing the yard from that point of view?

ICELAND (BRITISH FISHERMEN).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 7.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware of the general feeling of indignation among British fishermen frequenting Icelandic waters at the harsh treatment recently meted out to certain of their comrades by the Icelandic authorities and the officers of the Icelandic gunboats, and that there is a general desire among these fishermen that the White Ensign should he shown more frequently in Icelandic waters; and whether a gunboat or destroyer can be sent for this purpose?

Mr. AMERY: No reports have been received at the Admiralty of harsh treatment of British fishermen in Icelandic waters or that there is a general desire for the White Ensign to be shown more frequently in this locality. On the general question I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the very full answers given by my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing on the 9th May.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Have the Admiralty inquired at the Foreign Office as to the complaints of overbearing conduct towards these officers and fishermen?

Mr. AMERY: As far as the Foreign Office aspect of the question is concerned, it was fully dealt with in an answer given by my Noble Friend only a week ago.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the hon. Gentleman is assured that there is a great deal of indignation among the fishermen in relation to this matter cannot he send one of the ships of our immense Navy up there occasionally?

Mr. AMERY: I do not think we have an immense Navy available for that purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

NAVAL WIRELESS STATION, BUNBEG.

Mr. LINDSAY: 14.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if the naval wireless station at Bun-beg, County Donegal, was maliciously destroyed last Friday by an armed band; if the furniture and fittings it contained were stolen and subsequently sold by auction by the thieves; what is the estimated amount of the loss sustained; and why the station was not effectively guarded?

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present position in regard to the Bunbeg naval wireless station; arid what steps the Government propose to take to prevent further occurrences in Ireland of a similar character?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): This wireless station was handed over to the Provisional Government a fortnight ago. On Thursday last it was destroyed. The amount of loss sustained by the Provisional Government depends on the extent of the destruction, as to which I have no information, but the total value of the buildings, furniture and equipment was approximately £4,600. In view of the fact that the station had been handed over to the Provisional Government the last part of both questions does not arise.

NORTHERN IRELAND (BRITISH TROOPS).

Sir W. DAVISON: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether British troops have been offered to the Northern Government to repel organised raids on the part of the Irish Republican Army; and whether adequate military forces are available in Ulster in the event of a massed attack being made upon the Ulster border, in view of a report issued by the commandant-general of the First Northern Division, Irish Republican Army, with regard to the recent fighting at Newtown-cunningham, in which he stated that a party of his flying column had been attacked while resting at Newtowncunningham, to which they had returned from active service in the six-county area?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): No British troops have been offered to the Government of Northern Ireland for any specific purpose such as that suggested in the question, but, as the House is aware, British troops are stationed within the area of that Government and are available for use in aid of the civil power if their aid is asked for. In reply to the second part of the question, His Majesty's Government has no reason to suppose that the number of troops so available is inadequate, but should the Northern Government at any time make representations in the matter, those representations will, of course, be very carefully considered.

MALICIOUS INJURIES (COMPENSATION COMMISSION).

Colonel NEWMAN: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Commission to inquire into awards made under the Criminal and Malicious Injuries (Ireland) Act is summoning witnesses to Dublin to give their evidence; that many so summoned are persons who have been obliged to leave Ireland under threat of death and whether, under these circumstances, he will consider the possibility of transferring the sittings of the Commission to Holy-head, to Bangor, or to Chester?

Captain FOXCROFT: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that witnesses who have been summoned to Dublin in connection with awards made under the Criminal and Malicious Injuries Act, 1920, and who have been forced to leave Ireland on threat of death, are afraid to return; and will he consider whether a change of venue would be possible?

Colonel GRETTON: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that many of those who have claims to make before the Committee of Inquiry into compensation claims to be held in Dublin in open Court consider that their lives would be in danger if they were to appear and give evidence in Dublin; and if opportunity will be given to such claimants to state their case in London, or elsewhere in Great Britain, under conditions where they may be free from the dangers which they fear in Dublin?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This Commission will hold its first meeting in Dublin at the end of this week. I am informed that no witnesses 'have been summoned by the Commission to this meeting. I am not aware that it has settled the procedure to be adopted before it, but I have no doubt that should the Commission find it necessary in any particular case to require the personal attendance of any individual who has reason to believe that his presence in Ireland would expose him to risk, suitable arrangements would be made to receive his statements elsewhere.

ATTACKS ON BRITISH SOLDIERS.

Captain FOXCROFT: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government has any further information as to the attack on two British soldiers in Dublin last Friday; and whether the Provisional Government has made any arrest in connection with the murder of Gunner Rolfe?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In reply to the first part of the question, the reports regarding this outrage which I have received add nothing to the information which has appeared in the Press. I understand that no arrest has yet been made in connection with this murder.

Captain FOXCROFT: Does the right hon. Gentleman see any advantage in giving arms to the Provisional Government, which never punishes and never protects, even five months after peace is supposed to have been declared?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is an argument.

LAND PURCHASE.

Mr. G. MURRAY: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is included in the term, pending trans. actions, for payment of purchase money under the Wyndham Irish Land Purchase Act; whether this includes all purchase moneys upon which interest is being paid at present; if not, what claims are excluded; and whether he will give an assurance on behalf of His Majesty's Government that all claims already recognised by payment of interest will in due course be liquidated?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The term "pending transaction" is well understood. What is contemplated is that
such transactions should be proceeded with in the same way as if there had been no change of Government. Interest on purchase money may be payable in the case of a purchase agreement which has not been finally sanctioned, and until final sanction has been given in accordance with the usual procedure it cannot be assumed that the purchase money mentioned in such agreement will be payable.

Mr. MURRAY: Is the House to understand that the Government can give no guarantee that the whole of the purchase money upon which interest has been paid will be liquidated?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have tried to answer the hon. Member's question. If he will read the answer, which has been prepared by the proper authorities, he will see that it covers the case he raises in his supplementary.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether the changed status of Southern Ireland has in any way affected the liability of the British Government which they undertook in this matter?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must have notice of that question.

VICTIMISATION.

Mr. DEVLIN: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the proposed Commission to deal with cases of victimisation, malicious injury, and persecution in Ireland is to be appointed; what representation will be given to the Catholics of Belfast and of the six counties of Northern Ireland on that Commission; and whether the parliamentary representatives of the Catholics of the six-county area will be consulted on the matter?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not aware of any proposal to appoint a Commission such as that referred to by the hon. Member. The last two parts of the question do not therefore arise.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask why a similar Commission for the North-Eastern area of Ireland is not being appointed under precisely the same conditions as exist in Southern Ireland, where a Commission was appointed?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That question was thoroughly gone into in the recent Debate, and may be raised again this afternoon. It cannot be answered fully in reply to a supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.

Mr. HAYDAY: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction with regard to the policy followed at the Employment Exchanges in informing men of vacancies created by a lock-out or strike; and whether, in view of the fact that, although applicants for employment are informed that a dispute is in progress, the supplying of information as to such vacancies is calculated to encourage men to offer themselves, to the prejudice of men engaged in the dispute, thus removing the exchanges from the field of strict neutrality, he will consider the advisability of instructing all exchange managers that particulars as to vacancies at establishments where a dispute is in progress shall not be dealt with?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction with regard to the manner in which Employment Exchanges deal with vacancies created by a trade dispute. The procedure, which is laid down by Regulations made under the Labour Exchanges Act, 1909, is to tell applicants all the facts known to the exchange. This seems to me to be the nearest approach possible to neutrality.

Mr. HAYDAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman not yet studied the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Barnes) and their suggestions relative to this matter? Does he not think that some such new Regulation should he made so as to ensure the neutrality of Employment Exchanges in connection with lock-outs and strikes?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have studied these recommendations, but, in my judgment, it is not desirable to alter the law. I have stated what is done in the matter.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not the fact that managers of Employment Exchanges, many years ago, were instructed to inform men, when applying for situations, if there was a strike or lock-out?

Dr. MACNAMARA: That is what I have just said. It is the procedure laid down in the Regulations to which my hon. Friend has referred. The recommendation is that men should be told if there is a strike or lock-out, and that is what is done.

Mr. HAILWOOD: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to see that the Employment Exchanges are closed down? Then there would be no need for these precautions.

Mr. W. THORNE: Close down lockouts at the same time.

ENGINEERING TRADE.

Mr. W. THORNE: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the Engineering and National Employers' Federation have locked out the whole of the workers in the engineering industry; if he is aware that workmen at Accrington who, prior to 2nd May, the date when the lock-out notices operated to workmen other than members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, were unemployed and receiving unemployment insurance benefit, had the benefit discontinued by the Employment Exchange officer after that date on the ground that they should have accepted the conditions of employment offered by the Engineering Employers' Association; and will he take action immediately to reinstate such unemployment benefit?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am making inquiries into the cases referred to by my hon. Friend, and I will let him know the result as soon as possible. I may add that the general point referred to in the question is at present receiving my consideration, and so far as I am aware benefit has not been stopped in cases of the kind referred to.

Miss A. C. PHILLIPS, Bow.

Mr. MILLS: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Miss A. C. Phillips, 17a, Wellington Road, Bow, whose claim for unemployment benefit has been disallowed at the Stratford Employment Exchange; whether he is aware that Miss
Phillips, after several years of expensive education, secured a position as secretary and shorthand-typist; that in consequence of the death of her employer she lost her employment; and that because she has refused employment as a domestic servant, on account of her delicate health and her personal abilities, her claim for benefit has been disallowed; whether it is in accordance with the Regulations that benefit should not be paid in such Cases; and whether he will have further inquiries made into this matter?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am having inquiries made locally and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

RELIEF APPLICATIONS, NORTHFLEET.

Mr. MILLS: 36.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that unemployed persons in Northfleet have to walk a distance of about 14 miles to appear before the Strood Board of Guardians to apply for relief; that the Strood Board of Guardians only meets once a month; and whether he will make representations to the board of guardians as to the possibility of allowing a sub-committee of the board, consisting partly of the Northfleet members, to sit in Northfleet and deal with local cases?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): Yes, Sir. I am in communication with the guardians with regard to their arrangements for dealing with applications for relief.

LABOUR COLONY, HOLLESLEY BAY.

Mr. MILLS: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that 98 men at the Hollesley Bay Labour Colony have returned to London as a protest against the conditions of work; and whether he will make an inquiry into the matter?

Mr. KENNEDY: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has been informed of the return, in a body, of nearly 100 men from the Labour Colony, Hollesley Bay, as a protest against the conditions of work there; whether he regards the hours of labour, pay, and general conditions as satisfactory; and whether, since the return of these men will mean that they will most probably become a charge
upon the boards of guardians, he will sec that the conditions at the Labour Colony are made at least sufficiently tolerable to induce men to stay there?

Sir A. MOND: I am aware that a number of men relieved at the Colony have returned to London, and. I am making inquiries into the matter, but on the information at present available I see no reason to criticise the hours of labour, pay and general conditions of the Colony. As regards the last part of the question, I would point out that these men were already in receipt of relief, and have been sent to the Colony at the cost of the guardians.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SHORTAGE.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 26.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to a recent statement by His Honour Judge Parry that anyone who spends a morning in an urban county court knows that the house shortage is causing untold moral and physical ill-being; and, in view of the Government's pronouncement that they only contemplated a temporary check on their building programme until prices fell, will he now authorise local authorities in congested and overcrowded areas to build more houses, seeing that building costs are now down over 100 per cent.?

Sir A. MOND: My attention has not previously been drawn to the statement referred to. As regards further Government housing, I can add nothing to the replies already given to the hon. Member on the subject, but, as I stated recently, I shall be happy to entertain proposals from local authorities to build outside the State Assisted Scheme.

Mr. THOMSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether any slight financial gain that may accrue through the delay is not more than compensated for by the moral and social harm done by the continuance of overcrowding?

Sir A. MOND: I do not see why the local authorities, whose primary duty it is to deal with these questions, should not begin to act on their own responsibility.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rates of some
local authorities are 20s. or 30s. in the £, and that they cannot afford to take over State responsibilities in regard to which the Prime Minister offered assistance at the last election?

Mr. THOMSON: 27.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the conflicting statements made as to the shortage of housing accommodation, he will ascertain from local authorities the number of new houses they still require to prevent the excessive overcrowding at present existing in most industrial areas, and which according to all medical officers of health is prejudicial to the preservation of good health and morals?

Sir A. MOND: I have given oareful consideration to this suggestion, but I do not think there would be any advantage in obtaining a special return at the present time.

Captain COOTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this overcrowding occurs, not only in industrial areas, but also to a very considerable extent in agricultural areas?

Sir A. MOND: There has always been a considerable amount of overcrowding in this country, and I have no doubt that it exists in those areas.

NORTH DARLEY.

Mr. C. WHITE: 31.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the great demand for housing accommodation in the district of the North Darley Urban District Council, and that there are many houses in this district which are being kept empty by the owners with a, view to their being sold at an enhanced price; and whether, under these circumstances, he will introduce such legislation as is necessary to empower local authorities to take possession of such houses, guaranteeing a fair rent to the respective owners and thus provide the housing accommodation required or, in the alternative, that the owners may be called upon to pay the rates in full in the same manner that the tenant would have to pay if the houses were occupied?

Sir A. MOND: I have no evidence that there is a great demand for housing accommodation in this district, or that houses are being kept empty as stated
in the question. I could not undertake to introduce legislation for the purpose suggested.

Mr. WHITE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is time that this method of blackmail was stopped, in the interests of the community?

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.

Mr. MILLS: 37.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the widespread feeling of anxiety among householders, lodgers, and shopkeepers arising out of the statement that the Rent Restrictions Act is to be allowed to lapse; and whether he will cause a statement to be issued to allay public anxiety?

Sir A. MOND: As I have previously stated, I think it would be premature to make any statement at the present time as to continuing an Act which has more than 12 months still to run.

Mr. MILLS: Is the right hon. Baronet aware that this subject is causing a lot of anxiety, and that a statement from him would ease the public mind?

Sir A. MOND: No doubt.

STABLES.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 43.
asked the Minister of Health if, having regard to the injury to public health caused by the close proximity of stables to dwelling-houses, he will either sanction local bye-laws or amend the Public Health Acts so that local authorities can object to the erection of stables in close proximity to dwelling-houses in congested area?

Sir A. MOND: Local authorities can regulate, through bye-laws, the space about stables which are to be erected. There is no similar power as regards existing buildings converted into stables, and the question of legislation on this matter will be borne in mind when opportunity offers.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Baronet aware that serious ill-health results from this congestion, and how long does he propose to wait until the local authorities have power to remedy this state of things?

Sir A. MOND: I have pointed out that the conversion of existing buildings is a question of legislation. My hon. Friend
is as well aware as am of the difficulty of getting fresh legislation through this House at present.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (FINANCE).

Mr. STANTON: 29.
asked the Minister of Health if he will recommend that a Committee, such as the Geddes Committee, shall be set up to inquire into the condition and management of the finances of all local boards?

Sir A. MOND: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave last Thursday to a similar question by the hon. Member for the Moss Side Division of Manchester (Lieut.-Colonel Hurst).

ABERDARE DTSTRICT COUNCIL.

Mr. STANTON: 30.
asked the Minister of Health if he can see his way to grant a full public inquiry into the financial position of the Aberdare District Council; and if he will instruct the district auditor to inquire into the allegations that Hirwain School huts cost £R.rno and are worth £200 only, that Abercwmbri School huts proposed cost is £4,000 and arc worth £150, and that a wall, 150 feet long, 6 feet in height, by 21 inches wide, cost £400 and is only worth £100?

Sir A. MOND: As I stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member on Wednesday last, the inquiry can best be made by the district auditor at the forthcoming audit. The audit will be a public one, and the auditor has full power to investigate all the matters referred to by the hon. Member and to take such action as may be necessary.

MILK SUPPLY, NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.

Mr. DOYLE: 32.
asked the Minister of Health if the medical officer, sent from the Department of the Ministry of Health to Newcastle to investigate the serious cases of milk pollution in that city, has concluded his investigations and sent in his report; and, if so, what are the particulars of such report?

Sir A. MOND: Yes, Sir; I have received the report of my officer, and am satisfied that the results stated by the medical officer of health of Newcastle-on-Tyne are correct.

Mr. DOYLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the representative who was sent down from the Department was a qualified analyst?

Sir A. MOND: The representative who went down was a qualified man. It is not a question of analysis, but a question of bacteriology.

Mr. DOYLE: Is there a qualified analyst in the Department for the purpose of making investigations on samples of milk?

Sir A. MOND: It is not a question of analysis. I sent down a duly qualified medical man, who examined into the bacteriological measures taken. I have read his report very carefully myself, and he confirms the methods adopted by the medical officer of health as having been satisfactory.

Mr. DOYLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since this question was first raised a fortnight ago additional samples have been taken, and that 10 per cent. additional pollution has been found in the samples taken during that period?

Sir A. MOND: I am not aware of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

TRAINING (OPTICAL INDUSTRY).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied that the scheme for training disabled ex-service men, as proposed by the technical advisory panel at its meeting on 11th April last, is justifiable in view of the present state of the industry, and the considerable number of experienced ophthalmic optical workers at present unemployed; whether the period of training, as proposed, is sufficient to guarantee to the men so trained sufficient knowledge and experience to enable them to obtain employment in other workshops when their period of training is completed; and whether this particular industry offers sufficient prospects to justify the training of more men within it?

Dr. MACNAMARA: This scheme has been very carefully considered by a panel representing the trade concerned and by the Department, and although, unfortunately, there is at present considerable unemployment on the manufac-
turing side, openings are available in jobbing and prescription houses. Training will be carried out wholly in workshops and the admission of trainees will be regulated by the openings immediately available. An extension of the periods of training will be considered if experience shows it to be necessary, but I am advised that the periods laid down are adequate.

KING'S NATIONAL ROLL.

Brigadier-General PALMER: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the injustice to small tradesmen in the matter of the King's Roll; whether he is aware that although they may have done their best by keeping open the places of their employés who went to the War, through being unable to employ their quota of ex-service men they are disqualified for the King's Roll, and as a result cannot contract for Government work; and can he see his way to remedy this hardship?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Firms with 20 workpeople or less can qualify for the Roll by employing one disabled man. The position of firms so small that they cannot employ even one disabled man is safeguarded in connection with Government contracts by the authority given to the contracting department to allocate contracts in very exceptional circumstances to employers not on the Roll. The size of the firm is one of the circumstances taken into account.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there are approximately 1,700 women employed at the Ministry's Department at Kew, and that strenuous efforts are made to bring about the complete staffing of this Department with female labour; and whether, having regard to the fact that thousands of ex-service men who are capable of doing the work are at present unemployed, he will have the matter thoroughly inquired into, and not permit the threatened change until this House has had an opportunity of discussing the same?

Dr. MACNAMARA: There are approximately 1,700 women now employed at the claims and record office at Kew wholly engaged on work classified by the
Treasury as permanent women's work, and there are upwards of 1,800 ex-service men. A year ago the corresponding figures were 1,800 and 1,700 respectively. The principles laid down in the Lytton Reports upon the employment of ex-service men are being fully observed at Kew, and there is, therefore, no ground for the suggestion contained in the question.

Sir H. NIELD: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that that the suggestion that strenuous efforts are made to bring about the complete staffing of this Department with female labour is not borne out by the facts?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am compelled by the Treasury Regulations to allocate a proportion of this work to women, and that has been done, but there is no foundation for the suggestion that "strenuous efforts are made to bring about the complete staffing of this Department with female labour." I have not heard of the suggestion. I should have something to say about it if it were made.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, BLYTH.

Mr. CAIRNS: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the situation of the temporary staff at the Blyth Employment Exchange; is he aware that all the staff are ex-service men, that the work is increasing, some of the staff are being dismissed, others under notice, and that those remaining are working overtime; and will he inquire into the matter?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The temporary staff at Blyth, as at most Exchanges, consists entirely of ex-service men. The work at the Blyth Exchange has recently been declining, not increasing, and accordingly the staff has been reduced by one. A considerable amount of overtime was worked at the Exchange in the week ending 8th May, but the reason for this is not clear, and inquiry is being made.

INSTRUCTIONAL FACTORY, SPRING BANK, HULL.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it is proposed to close down the Government instructional factory at Spring Bank, Hull, and to transfer the trainees to Leeds; if
so, whether he will state the reasons for this step; whether he has considered the great inconvenience which this will cause to the trainees, and especially to married men with families; and whether he will consent to receive a deputation on the subject before the factory is finally closed?

Dr. MACNAMARA: There has been no decision as yet to close this factory, but its continuance depends upon the rate at which the trades in Hull are prepared to pass men into training. I will certainty receive a deputation on the matter if so requested.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the last part of his answer, may I ask whether there is a large waiting list in the locality waiting for admission to this factory?

Dr. MACNAMARA: We have some 29,000 throughout the country, and I imagine that there is a considerable number in that district.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: Why are not the vacancies filled up?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The work is in the hands of the local technical advisory committee. They tell us how many men can be admitted, having regard to the possibilities of future employment. During.a time of great depression they make that number fewer and fewer. If my hon. and gallant Friend, the next time he is in Hull, will use his persuasive powers with the local technical advisory committee, I shall be very much obliged to him.

VIENNA (MEAT AND MILK).

Colonel NEWMAN: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the great hardship to all classes, and loss of infant life that is being experienced in Vienna owing to the acute shortage of butchers' meat and milk; and whether, seeing that this is the result of Hungary not being able to send either meat or milk to Vienna, because, under a Treaty obligation, she has to give up her cattle to Roumania and Yugo-Slavia, and that both these countries are, as compared with Vienna, amply supplied with meat and milk, he will make representations to the countries in question to forego their claim for cattle and take their reparation in some other form?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am aware that considerable distress exists in Vienna owing to the difficulty experienced by many of the inhabitants in obtaining sufficient meat and milk. This situation, which has existed for some years, cannot, however, be due to the demand made upon Hungary for the surrender of cattle. This demand is made in accordance with the Treaty of Trianon. Although a very generous time limit has been allowed to the Hungarian Government within which to fulfil it, they have not, as a matter of fact, yet complied. Moreover, the number of cattle now to be surrendered represent only one-fifth of Hungary's annual surplus live-stock, or one-half of 1 per cent. of her total stock.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Hungary gives this as the actual reason why she cannot send meat to Vienna?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no official statement from Hungary to that effect.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: As Germany has been let off so easily in the matter of reparations, could not the same consideration more suitably be extended to Austria and Hungary?

Captain ELLIOT: Is it not a fact that the Roumanians themselves carried off enormous numbers of livestock from that territory, actually themselves collecting the reparations in question?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: These are large questions and I must have notice.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Has not the whole matter been raised by the question of the hon. Member opposite?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is leading to debate.

DEATHS FROM STARVATION,

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 33
asked the Minister of Health (1) the names of the counties and unions where 28 persons, after an inquest, were declared to have died from starvation or privation in the year 1920;
(2) the age and sex, specifying in what unions they died, of the four persons who were found upon an inquest to have died from starvation or privation in London;
(3) whether he will obtain a report on the deaths caused by starvation or
privation in 1020 in Durham county from the Coroners as well as from the Poor Law inspector; the ages and sex of the deceased person and the name of the unions where they died; whether be has received information that the number of such deaths were four in London and 28 in the provinces from inquiries made from all the Coroners in England and Wales; and, if not, whether he will make inquiries from all Coroners who have not been asked so as to ensure that the total numbers are given correctly?

Sir A. MOND: As the reply to these questions is necessarily lengthy, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The answer is as follows:

The counties and unions in which these deaths occurred were as follows:

County and Union.

Cumberland.—Cockermouth.
Denbigh.—Wrexham.
Devonshire.—Tavistock.
Durham.—South Shields.
Durham.—Sunderland.
Durham.—Durham.
Durham.—Easington.
Durham.—Easington.
Glamorgan.—Bridgend and Cowbridge.
Huntingdon.—St. Ives.
Kent.—Eastry.
Kent.—Sheppy.
Lancashire.—Ashton-under-Lyme.
Lancashire.—West Derby.
Lancashire.—Ormskirk.
Lancashire.—Chorley.
Lancashire.—Burnley.
Leicester.—Billesdon.
London.—Kingston-on-Thames.
London.—Reigate.
London.—Lambeth.
London.—Whitechapel.
Merioneth.— Corwen.
Middlesex.—Hendon.
Norfolk.—King's Lynn.
Oxfordshire.—Bicester.
Shropshire.—Madeley.
Somerset.—Long Ashton.
Southampton.—Petersfield.
Staffordshire.—Burton-on-Trent.
Suffolk.—Newmarket.
Yorkshire (West Riding).—Wharfedale.

The particulars of the four cases in the County of London are as follows:—

Female, aged 45–50.
Male, aged 44.
Male, aged 40.
Male, aged 60.

The particulars of the five cases in the County of Durham are as follows:—

Male, aged 54, South Shields Union.
Male, aged 70, Sunderland Union.
Male, aged 73, Durham Union.
Male, aged 5 months, Easington Union.
Male, aged 47, Easington Union.

All Coroners' verdicts are registered by the Registrar of Births and Deaths. and there is no necessity to inquire of Coroners as to whether these figures are complete. The special report made at the hon. Member's request into the Durham cases gives the following further particulars.

J.M., aged 54, a dock labourer, on 26th February, 1920, at 11, Maxwell Street, South Shields: verdict—Found dead in his bed: heart failure, want of food and all necessaries of life and medical aid. An unknown man, aged 70, on the 7th February, at linker Beach, Sunderland: verdict—Starvation and exposure to wet and cold. R.R., aged 73, a retired coal-miner, on 4th September, in a field adjoining Tudhoe Village, Spennymoor: verdict —Senile decay and exposure through sleeping out. W.H.R., aged 5 months. son of an hawker, on the 21st May, at Wingate: verdict—Exposure to the night air due to natural causes. J.E.A., aged 47, a coalminer, on the 22nd August, at Wingate: verdict—Exposure, having probably mistaken his way in the dark and fallen down and being unable to get up again. In the course of his inquiries the general inspector communicated with the coroners for the county, and extracts from the replies received from four of these gentlemen are appended:—
My experience has been that the deaths from exposure have not resulted from any neglect on the part of the Poor Law Authorities. A tramp moving from one institution to another is taken ill or has become belated, and takes a rest, is the general cause of death in these cases. Drunkenness is responsible in other cases.
In my experience I have always found the Poor Law Authorities, without exception, considerate and sympathetic in the performance of their duties, and there is no possible ground to reflect on them in these three cases.
In none of these cases, however, was any reflection or blame cast upon the Poor Law Administration, and I may add that in my experience with cases where Poor Law Administration has been concerned no blame has ever been attached to them and I have always found the officials most ready and willing to give every assistance and information that I required.
In none of these cases was there, or could there be, any complaint against the Poor Law system or its officers.

CARAVANS, WIRRALL.

Mr. STEWART: 41.
asked the Minister of Heath whether he is aware that there is a settlement of caravans in the Wirral Division of Cheshire which is spreading in every direction and getting quite beyond the power of the local authorities to deal with and control; and whether he can see his way to send down one of his officers to inspect it and report upon it and also consult with the local authority as to the best steps to be taken?

Sir A. MOND: Yes, Sir. I propose to send one of my officers to Wirral at an early date, and he will consult with the local authority as to the steps to be taken.

BOROUGH EXTENSION.

Sir R. CLOUGH: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the Vote on the Leeds and Bradford Extension Bill and the feeling thereby engendered on municipal plans of this nature, he will now consider the desirability of instituting a general inquiry into the whole question of urban extension and the principles which should govern it, so as to avoid injustice to the non-urban districts and the waste of money in promoting schemes which do not meet with public acceptance?

Sir A. MOND: I am at present conferring with representatives of the County Councils Association and the Municipal Corporations Association on the general question of borough extensions, and I hope it may be possible to arrive at some agreement which will commend itself to the judgment of the House.

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE (COMMON SERVICES).

Mr. MALONE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister what are the terms of reference
of the Committee, presided over by the Minister of Health, which is considering the question of amalgamating certain common services, such as the medical, accountant, audit, and chaplain branches of the three fighting Services; what is the constitution of the Committee; and is the Committee in a position to recommend the creation of a Ministry of Defence should it appear to them to be desirable?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The terms of reference of the Committee are as follows: That a technical Committee should be set up at once to make definite proposals for the amalgamation, or, if this appeared impossible or undesirable, for the co-ordination, so far as possible, of the common services of the Navy, Army and Air Force, such as intelligence, supply, transport, education, medical, chaplains, and any other overlapping Departments, in order to reduce the cost of the present triplication. The Committee should consider each branch separately, and submit interim reports to the Cabinet as soon as possible.
The Committee consists of:

The Minister of Health (Chairman).
The Right Hon. the Lord Weir.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn.
The hon. and gallant Member for Howdenshire.
Sir G. L. Barstow.
Sir Arthur I. Durrant.
Major-General Sir P. A. M. Nash.
As I stated in reply to questions on Monday last, a separate Committee will investigate the practicability of a Ministry of Defence.

Mr. MALONE: In view of the fact that the question of the establishment of a Ministry of Defence, and the amalgamation of the services mentioned are so closely connected, would it not be best to have the same Committee to make the same investigation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the Government thought so they would have appointed one Committee to inquire into both questions. The Government take a different view. Of course it is not a matter that can be settled by question and answer.

Major-General SEELY: When will the Committee to inquire into the desirability of a Ministry of Defence be set up?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice. I am not quite certain what the exact state of affairs is at the moment.

Major-General SEELY: It will be set up?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh yes.

ASIA MINOR (TURKS AND CHRISTIAN MINORITIES).

Lord ROBERT CECIL: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether observers will be sent out at the same time to Anatolia, to Smyrna, and other districts at present in the occupation of the Greek forces?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In order to guard against the risk of reprisals, and that we may be in possession of accurate information, His Majesty's Government will at once propose to the Allies and the Government of the United States of America to join in sending officers to the Smyrna district also.

Lord R. CECIL: 47.
asked the Prime Minister what number of observers are to be sent to Anatolia, and when will they start?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I cannot answer this question until the replies of the Allied and American Governments and of the Angora authorities to the proposals of His Majesty's Government have been received.

Lord R. CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman cannot even tell me the number of observers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, obviously not. That must depend on the communications with the Angora Government, and so far they have not answered our first communication. A request to treat the matter as urgent has been addressed to them, I think, to-day.

Lord R. CECIL: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to avoid delays which may mean the death of thousands of the non-Turkish inhabitants
of Anatolia, the proposed British observers will be sent forthwith without waiting for action by any other country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If other Powers do not agree to send Commissioners, His Majesty's Government will nevertheless endeavour to send a British Mission on their own account.

Sir J. D. REES: Will the instructions to this Commissioner or observer be to report upon atrocities by whomsoever committed, of whatever nationality or religion?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Most certainly.

Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that His Majesty's Government has been repeatedly warned that the Allied policy of sending the Greeks to Smyrna would result in massacres of Christian and Moslem minorities, and that the policy of sending British observers is not likely to prove helpful to minorities, it will suggest to a neutral Government the advisability of sending representatives to Smyrna and to Pontus, with the consent of the Royal Government of Greece and the Government of Angora, to bear impartial testimony as to what is happening?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I stated on the 15th instant, the Turkish atrocities against the Christian minorities have been going on almost continuously for more than seven years. His Majesty's Government have good reasons to believe that about half a million Ottoman Greeks were deported by the Turks during the War, of whom a very large number perished in circumstances of unspeakable barbarity. I cannot, therefore, accept my hon. Friend's implication that the Turkish atrocities of the last few years are primarily due to the Greek landing at Smyrna. With regard to the second part of the question, I would point out that His Majesty's Government have already asked the Government of the United States of America, which is a neutral power, as well as the Governments of France and Italy, to join them in sending representatives to the Pontine district. In so far as the despatch of similar representatives to the Smyrna district is concerned, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin to-day.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

MILITARY REQUIREMENTS.

Sir C. YATE: 52.
asked the Lord Privy Seal what has been the decision of the Sub-Committee of Imperial Defence en Indian military requirements?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Sub-Committee have not completed their Report, though I anticipate that another meeting will probably enable them to do so. It will then, I think, be necessary for the Report to be considered at a full meeting of the Committee of Imperial Defence. Some time must therefore elapse before a statement can be made to the House.

ROYAL INDIAN MARINE (PENSIONS).

Sir C. YATE: 71.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India when the new pension rules for the Royal Indian Marine are to be introduced?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given on the 15th May to the hon. Member for the Bury St. Edmunds Division.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

MANDATE.

Sir JOYNSON-HICKS: 53.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Mandate for Palestine comes before the League of Nations this week; and when and in what manner he proposes to submit it to this House for approval?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is hoped that the Mandate will come before the Council of the League of Nations this week. I am not yet in a position to make any statement as to the occasion on which it could best be discussed in this House.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As we are getting very near the date of the meeting of the League of Nations, can the right hon. Gentleman say when the matter will definitely come before the House for consideration and approval?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If there be a real desire on the part of the House to discuss it, I think it is obviously a matter which the House ought to have an opportunity of discussing. The Government would not object to the House discussing
such a matter. I do not feel that it is necessary as a matter of form, as a matter of routine, to submit it formally to the House. If there is a desire to discuss it, there must be some opportunity found, but what that opportunity will be, and when it will arise, I cannot say at the present time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As this Mandate means the expenditure of great sums of money, ought it not as a matter of routine to come before the House, and ought not the approval of the House to be asked?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that assumption is not correct. The adoption of the Mandate will rather lessen our expenditure than increase it.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: There will he some expenditure arising.

Mr. SPEAKER: If there is, it must go on the Estimates. Therefore it will have to come up.

ROMAN CATHOLIC TRIBUNALS.

Mr. DOYLE: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the report of a lecture delivered in Rome by the Roman Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem, to the effect that Roman Catholics in Palestine no longer enjoy the privilege of having their own tribunals, and that the administration of justice is partial; and will he have this question inquired into?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Edward Wood): Yes, Sir, I have read with some surprise a copy of the report, referred to, which contains several statements which I can only presume were incorrectly reported. The suggestion that any privilege enjoyed by Roman Catholics in Palestine has been suspended or interfered with is, of course, totally without foundation. It is true that the necessity for European subjects, whether Roman Catholic or not, to have recourse to their own Consular Courts on civil matter no longer exists under a British administration and it is proposed that this fact shall be explicitly stated in the Mandate for Palestine. I am not aware upon what ground the allegation was made, if indeed it was made, that the administration of justice in Palestine is partial. It is absolutely untrue.

TANGANYIKA (SLAVERY ORDINANCE).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any decision has been taken with regard to the early termination of the system of slavery in Tanganyika Territory?

Mr. WOOD: Yes, Sir, the penal code now in force in the Territory provides, among other things, that whoever imports, exports, removes, buys, sells or disposes of any person as a slave, or accepts or detains against his will any person as a slave, is punishable by imprisonment with or without hard labour, and is also liable to a fine. A separate Ordinance will be enacted shortly making further provisions which are considered advisable.

AEROPLANE PARACHUTES.

Sir W. OYNSON-HICKS: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether there are any fighting aeroplanes fitted with a parachute; whether flying officers have received any orders in reference to the use of parachutes; and whether he can make a statement as to the position which has been arrived at in regard to the use of parachutes and their reliability in the prevention of accidents?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): With reference to the first part of the question there are no fighting aeroplanes at present fitted with parachutes. As regards the second part of the question, a number of training aeroplanes are so fitted and instruction in the use of parachutes is being given, but at present no live drops for practice or experimental purposes are to be made from heavier-than-air craft. In reply to the third part of the question, the position in regard to parachutes is as follows: About 140 parachute sets have been issued for the equipment of Avro aeroplanes, which is the type employed for flying training purposes. These sets are being used for service trials, and reports are now being received making suggestions and recommendations regarding modifications and improvements found necessary. It is the intention to bring parachutes into general use as soon as they have reached a stage of development which warrants action involving some considerable expenditure.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is there any truth in the rumour—it cannot be more than that—that the Research Department on Parachutes has been very largely depleted in the last month, and that officers have been leaving?

Captain GUEST: I hope not. I will make inquiries.

Mr. MILLS: Has any application for one come from the President of the Board of Education?

CANADIAN CATTLE EMBARGO.

Mr. A. HERBERT: 65.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what has been the average in the last three years of Canadian cattle imported into this country for slaughter?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The total number of live cattle for food imported from Canada into the United Kingdom in 1921 was 31,974, and in the four months, January to April of this year, 2,193. No importation took place in 1919 or 1920.

Mr. STURROCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present embargo is very seriously interfering with the trade in Canadian cattle, and can he press the cattle—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making his speech in detachments. He should reserve the bits and give them as a complete whole when the occasion arises.

RABIES,SOUTHAMPTON.

Colonel BURN: 67.
aswed the Minister of Agriculture if he has been able to trace the origin of the case of rabies near Southampton; have any other dogs been infected since the Muzzling Order was imposed; and, if so, how many?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. The dog was probably bitten some time between early January and May by a rabid dog, now dead. Inquiries are being made as to any dogs lost or destroyed during that period, and as to whether any dogs may have been smuggled into the Southampton area from abroad.

Colonel BURN: What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking? Has the Muzzling Order been enforced?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am sorry that it has been necessary to re-impose the Muzzling Order in an area around Southampton.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

DANGEROUS ROAD (GLAMORGAN).

Mr. STANTON: 68.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport if his attention has been called to the narrow and dangerous part of the county road from Lletty-Turner Farm to the Pontyeynon Bridge, in the County of Glamorgan, South Wales; is he aware that a steam wagon was thrown over the embankment near Nixon's Colliery and that four workmen were injured on the. 16th ultimo; and will he take any action, in conjunction with the, county council, to remove this danger as soon as possible?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): The divisional road engineer has been instructed to make inquiries into the accident and into the condition of the road referred to. Upon receipt of his report I will consider what action, if any, is called for and communicate with my hon. Friend.

TIMBER (RAILWAY CHARGES).

Sir THOMAS BENNETT: 69.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether he is aware of the serious extent to which the home timber trade is being handicapped by the continuance of high railway charges, while home-grown timber fetches only 25 per cent. more than before the War, as well as by the difficulty of competing against foreign supplies, which enjoy lower rates owing to the fact that the railways can handle timber more economically from the large ports; and whether, in view of recent substantial reductions in the rates for iron, steel, and other materials, hopes of early corresponding reductions in the rates for timber and other materials used in building can be held out?

Mr. NEAL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 8th instant to the hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, of which I am sending him a copy.

PIT RAILWAY, NORTHUMBERLAND.

Mr. CAIRNS: 70.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport if he is aware that the public travel from Bedlington A pit to Bedlington tor. pit, in Northumberland, on the railway side, and that the engine drivers complain of the great danger of people travelling on this railway; and, if so, will he cause a pass-by to be made so that the public can travel with safety?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply. This matter has been carefully investigated by the inspectors of mines on more than one occasion at the instance of the National Union of Railwaymen. The colliery company has lighted the whole length of line next to which persons walk, as a safeguard against accident during the hours of darkness; and I am advised there is no evidence sufficient to establish that this siding is now dangerous or defective. This being so, I have no powers to intervene further.

Mr. CARNS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men have been travelling between these two points for 40 years or more?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman means that as an argument for my interfering or not.

Mr. CAIRNS: I am giving it as information.

COAL MINES, SCOTLAND.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: 74.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of persons employed in and about the Scottish coal mines during the first three months of the present year, distinguishing between those employed above and below ground and the numbers employed in the same months of the years 1919, 1920, and 1921?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The average number of wage-earners employed in and about Scottish coal mines during the first three months of the year 1922 was 25,100 above ground and 100,900 below ground. Corresponding figures for the year 1919 were '27,100 and 103,600, for the year 1920, 30,600 and 112,200; and for the year 1921, 30,100 and 120,500.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: 75.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents that have occurred in the Scottish coal mines during the first three months of the present year, and the number which occurred in the same months of the years 1919, 1920, and 1921?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: During the first three months of the year 1922, 41 persons were reported as killed, and 161 as seriously injured by accidents in and about mines and quarries in Scotland. Particulars are not available of the number of persons who sustained minor injuries. Corresponding figures for the year 1919 were, 50 killed and 180 injured; for the year 1920, 49 killed and 157 injured, and for the year 1921, 37 killed and 151 injured.

NAVY AND ARMY CANTEENS BOARD.

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: 76.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether to allay the apprehension of many who believe that, under proper supervision, the United Services fund would have benefited to the extent of £13,000,000, whereas it has at present received only about £4,000,000, he will now institute a public inquiry into the trading operations and working of the Navy and Army Canteens Board and Navy, Army and Air Force Institute, and report fully to Parliament the findings and recommendations?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): No, Sir; I think we must await the completion of the accounts of the trading in question, which, as my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, are now in course of preparation by Messrs. Deloitte, Plender, Griffiths and Company. In any case the question of the trading of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes is not relevant, as that organisation did not come into existence until 1st January, 1921. The question of the losses incurred by the Navy and Army Canteen Board in 1919 and 1920 during demobilisation has been dealt with by the Committee presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield which recommended
that these losses should be set against the previous profits. I would further add that the payment of about £4,000,000 already made was merely a payment on account.

Sir W. DAVISON: As four years have now elapsed since any accounts were submitted, when will these accounts be ready for publication?

Lieut. Colonel STANLEY: I have frequently said that no one will be more pleased than I when they are issued.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is responsible in this matter say approximately when the accounts will be ready?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put that question down.

ARMY SHORT-SERVICE ENGAGE-MENTS (DISCHARGE).

Major COLFOX: 78.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that soldiers serving on short-service engagements whose term of colour service expires before 1st April, 1923, are being compulsorily discharged at short notice; whether, seeing that, in view of the present condition of the labour market, the month's furlough granted to these men is not adequate to enable them to find work, he will state when the terms of compensation mentioned in paragraph 5 of War Office telegram W.O. AG 8 B/BM/9058 will be announced; and will urgent steps be taken to settle and publish these terms of compensation immediately?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The discharge of certain soldiers serving on short-service engagements has been ordered as part of the reductions to be made in the establishment of the Army. The terms of compensation to be given to these men, in addition to furlough, were published in a Royal Warrant issued as Army Order 179 on the 11th instant, details of which appeared in the Press on Saturday, the 13th instant.

Sir C. YATE: How many of these men have been dismissed?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I cannot say offhand. It was stated in the Debate on the Army Estimates.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

EXPENDITURE.

Sir J. D. REES: 79.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will give the total estimated expenditure from rates and taxes upon education in England, Scotland, and Wales for the current financial year, and explain the difference, if any, between such estimate and the estimate of £103,000,000 arrived at by the Geddes Committee; and, if the latter estimate is found to be erroneous, whether he will explain in respect of what items and in what behalf such errors are found or upon what erroneous premisses or principles such estimate is based?

Board of Education Vote.
Other Grants to L.E.A.s.
Total Expenditure from Taxes.
Total Expenditure falling on Rates.
Total Net Expenditure from Taxes and Rates.


£
£
£
£
£


50,600,000
950,000
51,550,000
38,300,000
89,850,000

The corresponding figures which form the basis of the Board's Estimates now before Parliament, and which are based

Board of Education Vote.
Other Grants to L.E.A.S.
Total Expenditure from Taxes.
Total Expenditure falling on Bates.
Total Net Expenditure from Taxes and Rates.


£
£
£
£
£


44,900,000
951,459
45,851,459
33,821,848
79,673,301

As regards Scotland, the hon. Baronet should address his question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland.

DAY CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.

Mr. MYERS: 80.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has sanctioned arrangements under Sections 6 and 13 or any other Section of the Education Act, 1921, whereby students residing in one area, but employed in another, are required or empowered to attend day continuation schools provided by the local education authority in whose area, they are employed; whether these arrangements have met with local support, including that of associations of employers and employés; and whether he

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): As the answer is somewhat long and contains a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The total estimated expenditure from rates and taxes for the year 1922–23 in respect of services in England and Wales which fall within the purview of the Board of Education was given by the Geddes Committee as £89,850,000—to which were added further sums of £12,910,000 for expenditure from Scottish rates and from taxes, and £1,120,000 for Treasury grants to Universities and colleges, bringing the total up to £103,880,000. The figure of £89,850,000, based upon conjectural forecasts, was made up as follows:

on the latest returns from local education authorities in England and Wales, are as follows:

will examine, by conference with the local education authorities concerned or otherwise, the possibility of making similar arrangements for Greater London?

Mr. FISHER: An appointed day for the purpose of Section 10 of the Education Act, 1918, has been fixed as respects young persons resident in Kent but employed in London under which those young persons are under obligation to attend day continuation schools in London. I have no specific information as to the attitude, of the employers in London and of young persons resident in Kent but employed in London towards this arrangement. I believe that the authorities of other areas contiguous to London,
with possible exception of Middlesex, do not desire to adopt a similar arrangement; and in present circumstances no useful purpose would be served by holding the conference which the hon. Member suggests.

TIMBER SALE (ABBEYCWMHIR).

Mr. BUTLER LLOYD: 81.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the sale of 2,178 tons of timber at. Abbeycwmhir at 21s. per ton by the Timber Disposal Department whether he is aware that the cost of the Department putting this timber on rail at Penybont station will be at least £5 per ton; why, under these circumstances, arrangements were not made for the timber to remain on the estate; whether he is aware that there are many cases similar to this being carried out by the Department; and whether he will take steps to prevent this waste of public money in future?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The sale referred to formed only a small part of the operations in connection with the estate, the total quantity of timber purchased being approximately 14,000 tons, and it is not possible accurately to compute the labour cost of a portion of the operations. The Board were under contractual obligations to remove the timber and clear the estate within a specified time, but the owner ultimately agreed to 1,400 tons of felled timber remaining where lying in the woods. No estates are now being worked by the Timber Disposal Department. and the last part of the question does not therefore arise.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Who has the disposal of this timber which was formerly under the Disposal Department?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Such timber as remains to be disposed of is being disposed of by the Disposal Department, but no further operations in the way of timber cutting remain to be done.

Mr. LLOYD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the damage to the roads is considerably more than the value of the timber removed?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Not in this particular case, but I am aware, having had to do with the liquidation of this particular Department, that, undoubtedly, the damage to roads forms a very heavy item in the cost.

WAR LOAN POLICIES (PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE COMPANY).

Mr. MYERS: 83.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the provisions of the Assurance Companies Bill, he can obtain information as to how many War Bond policies have been issued by the Prudential Assurance Company; what is the aggregate value of such policies; and how many of them have lapsed?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: According to information supplied by the Prudential Assurance Company, Limited, in January last the number of War loan policies issued in the industrial branch of the company was 1,882,732, of which 442,662 were not taken up. The number of policies lapsed was 279,788. On the 3rd December, 1921, the sum assured under policies remaining in force at that date was, approximately, £28,500,000 nominal of War stock or bonds.

Mr. MYERS: Does the law give any protection to these people whose policies have lapsed?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I must have notice of any questions on points of law.

TELEPHONES (RAILWAY STATIONS).

Mr. HURD: 85.
asked the Postmaster-General to what extent, if any, he contemplates the installation of telephones at railway stations as part of his programme of developing telephone facilities in rural areas?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pease}: The local telephone officials have instructions to open call offices at railway stations where there is a reasonable prospect of the revenue meeting the expenses incurred.

TEXTILES SURPLUS, LIMITED.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: 86.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who are Textiles Surplus, Limited; what is their capital; what was the nature of the contract entered into by the Disposal Board with them; and whether any arrangements have been made with the company for giving preference in disposal to any of their friends in Manchester or otherwise?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): The company is a limited liability company, and full information as to its composition and capital is available at Somerset House. With regard to the third part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which was given on this subject on the 10th May. I am not sure that I understand the last part of the question. My hon. Friend does not, I imagine, mean to suggest that the officials of the Department have arranged for a preference to their own friends. I need not say that such a suggestion would be absolutely baseless. In general, no arrangements for preferential treatment have been made by the Disposal Board or with their knowledge.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: if I put down a question for a non-oral answer will the hon. Gentleman give full details of this contract?

Mr. YOUNG: If the hon. Member states specifically what information he requires, I shall be most happy to furnish it.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will he give the House a copy of the contract?

Mr. YOUNG: I would like notice of that question.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will put it down.

DISTURBANCE, BERMONDSEY.

Mr. W. THORNE: 87.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that on the evening of Thursday, 11th May, whilst a number of workmen were peaceably discussing the circumstances of the present lock-out in the engineering industry in the vicinity of Raymouth Road, Bermondsey, Police-constable No. 529 M approached the men
and used provocative and insulting language; and if he will make inquiry into the matter.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I have made inquiry, and cannot find that the constable exceeded his duty in any way. He called upon a number of men, apparently strikers, who were following workmen, to disperse, but he denies using any provocative or insulting language, and no complaint was made at the time.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this constable is possessed of a violent temper and a bitter tongue?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a statement which ought not to be made in a supplementary question.

Mr. THORNE: What other remedy have we got?

REMAND PRISONERS (SEGREGATION).

Mr. L. MALONE: 88.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence given at the trial of Ronald True at the Old Bailey by Warder Dickinson regarding a conversation between True and the youth Jacoby in Brixton Prison; whether no attempt is made to keep the younger and older remand prisoners apart; and whether he will take steps to prevent the possibility of unconvicted prisoners, either male or female, under the age of 21 being confined in the same blocks of prisons as the older remand prisoners?

Mr. SHORTT: The prisoners were located in separate hospital wards. The remarks referred to in the evidence were called out by True when passing the ward in which Jacoby was confined. They never met or conversed. Prisoners awaiting trial are kept separate from each other, under Statutory Rule 187; and prisoners under the age of 21 are specially located so far as the, buildings and staff admit.

TAXI-CAB FARES.

Colonel NEWMAN: 90.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received any communication from any society, association, or union that represents the travelling public to the effect that the
fares for travelling by taxi-cab should be reduced in view of the fall in running and operating expenses; and what answer has he been able to make?

Mr. SHORTT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part therefore does not arise.

Colonel NEWMAN: If I put down a question for next Monday, will the right hon. Gentleman tell me then what information he has got?

Mr. SHORTT: If any communication is made to me in the meantime, I will answer it.

Colonel NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he 'has got one already?

WOMEN POLICE PATROLS.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: 91.
asked the Home Secretary how many of the present women patrols have been offered posts with the Metropolitan Police; how many have refused such posts; and for what reasons?

Mr. SHORTT: One of the officers was consulted as to her willingness to accept a post in connection with the Metropolitan Police, but declined to accept it. I understand she preferred work of another kind.

METROPOLITAN POLICE (IMBER COURT ESTATE).

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: 92.
asked the Home Secretary what was the original cost to the police fund of the Imber Court Estate; when was this purchased, and for what purpose; what was the cost of upkeep in 1921; and, in view of the urgent need for economy in Government Departments, does this place serve a sufficiently useful purpose to justify the expenditure involved?

Mr. SHORTT: The price paid for the Imber Court Estate, including the buildings on the site which have since been adapted for police purposes, was £12,743. The estate was purchased in 1920 for the purpose of providing new reserve stables a riding school and exercise ground, etc., for the mounted branch of the Metropolitan Police. The new stables, riding school and quarters were not taken into occupa-
tion until last month. The estimated cost of upkeep, including repairs, rates, taxes, fuel, light and cleaning is between £800 and £1,000 per annum, but there will be a set-off in respect of the reserve stables and riding schools hitherto used. The buildings and ground were urgently required for the purposes of the mounted branch and it would be impossible to dispense with them.
I may add that part of the ground which was not required for the purposes of the mounted branch has been allocated as a recreation ground for the force in view of the lack of facilities nearer London. This ground has been developed entirely at the expense of the men themselves, and no part of the cost will fall on the Police Fund.

MOTOR CAR TYRES.

Mr. W. GREENWOOD: 93.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that the only accessories of motor cars that are not subject to import duties are motor tyres, he will take steps to have these articles included, so as to put a stop to the dumping of tyres in this country at a price which is less than that of the raw material alone?

Mr. YOUNG: I am not prepared to revise the Budget proposals in the sense suggested. As regards the question of dumping, I would refer my hon. Friend to Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, which prescribes the procedure to be adopted in suitable cases.

COVENTRY FIRE BRIGADE.

Mr. MANVILLE: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Lock-out Committee of the Amalgamated Engineering Union in Coventry is prohibiting the members of the fire brigade at the various federated factories from attending to their duties? Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the factory fire brigades in that city are the chief protection against fire, and that the public generally, as well as the various works, are at present jeopardised in the event of a fire; and will he take steps to see that members of these brigades are not interfered with or molested in the execution of their duties?

Mr. SHORTT: I have no further information than that given to me yesterday by my hon. Friend, but I am making inquiries of the Chief Constable.

FINANCE BILL.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Finance Bill will be in the hands of hon. Members, seeing that in former years it has always been circulated in the first week, and the time for the Debate is now approaching?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): I hope it will be in the hands of hon. Members early next week.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That only gives hon. Members a week to consider it. It has always been circulated earlier.

Sir R. HORNE: I think that a week is the usual time.

SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.

GOVERNMENT DECISION.

STATEMENT BY MR. CHAMBERLAIN.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the Leader of the House, in relation to the decision of the House last night, whether he can make any statement?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Government have given careful consideration to the vote of the House last night. The Government cannot but consider as a serious matter any refusal by the House to support them in the steps which they think necessary to secure a reduction in public expenditure and an alleviation of the public burdens.
But, whatever may be said about the exact significance of last night's vote, the decision of the House was given upon a dilatory motion, upon which it was not in order to argue the merits of the case. In these circumstances, the Government have decided to defer to the wish expressed by the House that a small Select Committee—which the Government think should consist of not more than nine members—should be appointed to ascertain and report the facts which the
majority of the House appeared to think were insufficiently known. We propose that the reference to the Committee should be as follows:
To consider and report whether, in fixing the present scales of salaries for teachers, any undertaking by the Government or Parliament was given, or implied, that the provisions of the Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1918, should not be altered while these scales remain in force.
Immediate steps will be taken by the Patronage Secretary (Colonel Leslie Wilson) to set up this Committee, which the Government hope will meet at once, and proceed with all urgency.
It is evident, however, that compliance with the wishes of the House will, in any event, involve considerable delay in the passage of the Bill, and that it will consequently not be possible to ante-date the now charge—if it be ultimately approved by Parliament—to the beginning of the financial year. Until the contribution is imposed, an additional harden of approximately £200,000 a month will fall upon the Exchequer, and we shall at once lay a Supplementary Estimate for £600,000 to cover this charge during the first three months of the year.

Mr. CLYNES: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the decision of the Government after the defeat is quite in keeping with the advice tended to the Government repeatedly during the course of yesterday's Debate?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I realise that fact, and I well knew, when I went to a Division yesterday, that the Government stood in grave danger of being beaten. I was so advised by the Whips. I thought it my duty, and those of my colleagues, whom I was able to consult, agreed with me—I thought it the duty of the Government to put their own proposition to the House, and it was for the House to take the responsibility of rejecting the advice if they wished. We have deferred, so far, to the wishes of' the House as to appoint this Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTONGRIFFITHS: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the Select Committee suggested will interfere with or do away with the other Committee, which in any case was to be set up to investigate the whole question of teachers' salaries and pensions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. and gallant Friend is not quite correct in describing the functions of the other Committee. This Committee will not in any way interfere with its labours.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask whether, in order to minimise any possible expense to the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend will arrange for the Patronage Secretary to move the appointment of the Committee at the earliest possible moment, with instructions that it shall report as soon as possible?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already said that I would do so. The decision of the House involves a charge and the Government think that the House should make provision for that charge at the earliest possible date. I hope to take the Supplementary Estimate next week.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Go to the country on it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, if necessary.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Will the Select Committee to which the right hon. Gentleman now refers have power to inquire as to whether the Burnham Committee took into consideration, in fixing the scales, the question of the Superannuation Act of 1918?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have read the terms of reference which are proposed and which I think cover the point with which many hon. Members were concerned yesterday.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Do not the terms of reference now read out specifically declare that the inquiry shall be whether the Government did give an undertaking or not, and not whether it was in the minds of the Burnham Committee, when they fixed this scale, to consider the Superannuation Act of 1918?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it will be obvious to every Member of the House that what is involved is the obligation incumbent upon the Government and upon Parliament and the terms of reference are:
Whether in fixing the present scale for teachers, any undertaking by the Government or Parliament was given, or implied, that the provisions of the Teachers' Superannuation Act should not be altered while these scales remain in force.

Mr. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman invite the Minister of Education to cover this £200,000 per month by further immediate economies on the administrative side of his Department?

Mr. SPENCER: Arising out of the answer of the Leader of the House, is he accepting the decision of the Burnham Commitee as being the decision of the Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Most certainly not.

Mr. SPEAKER: The appointment of the Committee will have to appear on the Order Paper, and that will be the time to raise these questions.

FLEETS (BRITISH EMPIRE AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES).

Return ordered showing the Fleets of the British Empire, United States of America, Japan, France, Italy, Russia, and Germany, on the 1st day of February, 1922, omitting obsolete ships of all classes, and distinguishing, both built and building, battleships, battle cruisers, cruisers, light cruisers, armoured coast defence vessels and monitors, aircraft carriers, flotilla leaders, torpedo-boat destroyers, torpedo boats, submarines, sloops, coastal motor boats, gunboats, and despatch vessels, and river gunboats. Return to show date of launch, date of completion, displacement, horse-power, type of machinery and fuel, and armaments, reduced to one common scale.— [Lieut.-Colonel Burgoyne.]

STATE MANAGEMENT (LIQUOR TRADE) ABOLITION.

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish State management of the liquor trade.
The Bill is very short, acrid it provides for the repeal of the Clauses regarding State control in the Licensing Act of 1921, and there is also a provision to transfer properties under the State Management Committee to the Public Trustee for his early disposal. In the few minutes at my disposal I shall not be able to state fully the facts which I should like to produce
in support of my contention that the time has arrived when State control of the liquor trade should be abolished. I would first call attention to the introduction of State control. In the Debate in Committee on the Defence of the Realm Act on 11th May, 1915, the then Prime Minister used these words:
We are now taking purely temporary powers. The thing my hon. Friend wants to be assured about is that we are not purchasing for the purposes of trade. We cannot do that under the Bill. It is not good business to deprive the Government of the power of acquiring premises permanently and to sell them again at the end of the War. If they acquired temporarily at the end of the War they have nothing to sell and they might lose money.
The present Leader of the House on the same occasion said:
When the War comes to an end the real reason for the Bill will he at an end and the sooner we can stop our liabilities in the matter the better it will be.
It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that last year the Government brought in a Measure to transfer control from the Liquor Control Board to the Home Office, but owing to strong opposition to that proposal the Bill was withdrawn. When the Licensing (Amendment) Act, 1921, was brought before the House there was inserted a Clause to continue the control in the hands of the Home Secretary and the Secretary for Scotland, until Parliament otherwise determined. That was questioned by an Amendment to limit the period of control to 12 months, but the then Attorney-General stated:
It is made as plain as language call make it that what is contemplated is something of a temporary and transitional character.
I put down last week Notice of a Motion to abolish this control, but I was blocked and could not bring it before the House, and the only chance of testing the feeling of the House as to whether or not the time has arrived to abolish control, is now availed of. I have taken the only course open to me, by introducing a small Bill to bring about the abolition of this control. I would point out that this control is condemned by every local authority in whose district it is exercised. Resolutions have been passed by the town councils of Annan and Maryport, and strangely enough, since I took the matter in hand I have had several resolutions sent me by representative temperance organisations in the country, asking for the abolition of State control. The Geddes
Committee, composed as it was of expert financiers, agreed that the time had arrived when State control of the liquor trade should stop. They reported in these words:
The Home Office state that subject to further consideration as regards the Enfield Lock area which does not appear to be profitable, it is intended to continue all the existing schemes. We do not enter into the political or social reasons for this experiment, but in view of the results so far obtained, and of the risk of loss in future years, its continuance as a State undertaking would not appear likely to afford any special financial advantage to the taxpayer.
I propose to show the House that, not only in regard to finance, but for social reasons, State control has utterly failed. Several hon. Members have tried from time to time, and I have asked several questions, to ascertain how State control is working financially. We have always received evasive replies. I have been looking up the White Papers and Command Papers published by the Central Control Board. These include a statement of assets and liabilities as at 31st March, 1921, and they say the amount accruing to the Exchequer—not paid to the Exchequer, but accruing to it—since the Board's direct control of the undertaking, now stands at rather more than 40 per cent. of the capital employed. For snore than six years they have paid something less than 7 per cent. per annum. Then they pay no Income Tax, no Excess Profits Duty, no Licensing Duty, and, taking all these figures into consideration, it brings the profit down to something like 2 per cent. I contend that is too near a margin to justify the State in controlling the trade. We have been trying to ascertain how much money has been handed over to the Liquor Department by the State. It has never been clearly stated. During the first year or two sums were taken out of Votes of Credit, and probably they have never been brought into the account. At any rate we have no proof of otherwise. The Home Secretary in March last, answering a question put in this House, said that the capital employed up to 31st March; 1921, was £1,251,805. If that were correct, why does it not agree with the figure shown in the report issued by the Control Department? They say, in their annual statement, that up to 31st March, 1921, the outstanding issues from the Exchequer amounted to
£660,577. That shows a discrepancy of no less than £591,228. I contend that is obvious proof of the unreliability of these accounts. The Home Secretary, on the 2nd of the present month, in reply to a question as to what proportion of the money accruing to the Exchequer represented interest and what proportion represented capital, said: "We do not go into these matters." I contend that, if that sort of system of loose financial control be adopted, it is quite time that the State gave up management altogether. It would never be submitted to by any private company.
I now wish to come to the question of the social advantages of State control. I saw in the paper that the Home Secretary paid a visit to Carlisle recently. He went down there heralded by previous notice. The windows were dressed for his visit, and he saw all that was best to be seen. I myself went down to Carlisle, but there was no intimation of my journey there. I spent three days in Carlisle and the district, and I saw things as they are. I do not hesitate, as a licensing magistrate with many years' experience, to say that some of the houses now run by the State in Carlisle would never be passed by any licensing bench in this country. I went into one house on which the State has spent thousands of pounds in alterations, a house called the King's Head. It is a regular rabbit warren, full of small rooms. There were several women's bars in the place, and all of them were packed full with women drinking. At half-past nine on Saturday night I saw a woman take a child of ten years of age into one of these bars. There was no police obstruction, and the landlord could not see the child, the place was so full.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has had his pint, but he seems to want a quart.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: May I crave one moment more just to finish my speech? I contend that the time has arrived when we should abolish State control altogether and leave the matter to private enterprise, where the men in control of the house will have personal responsibility.

Mr. MILLS: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member oppose the Bill?

Mr. MILLS: Yes, I oppose it. I have listened with very great interest to the admission of the hon. and gallant Member who brings forward this Measure to the effect that the State can and does, at least in some directions of its activities, make a profit on its trading. The hon. and gallant Gentleman complains that he went to Carlisle without anyone knowing him. That has been the experience of other people, and they are not all inclined to agree with him. If the hon. and gallant Member be prepared to accept a challenge, I am prepared to bring into any Committee room of this House a number of photographs showing the general condition of dilapidations and statistics of drunkenness of the whole area and compare them with the statements made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. His case is on all fours with that which the brewing interest has made generally. It has been said that you could take any town in Great Britain and compare it with 60 other towns, and show by the kind of analysis adopted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and some of his co-directors that that town was more drunken than any other. That kind of reasoning may be particularly applicable to their general methods of deduction, but, if one looks to the general circumstances which led to control being adopted in Carlisle, if one reflects upon the danger to every young girl and woman in Carlisle in the early days of the outbreak of War, and if one remembers the influx of three times the normal population, the courageous work done in order to bring that population to something like normal conduct, and the general measure of appreciation that has been rendered by every public man who has seen it at close quarters, not with biassed, but with ordinary, moral, impartial minds, I am perfectly certain that the arguments adduced here will be refuted. I would be most happy to throw out that challenge to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to bring forward his arguments as to dilapidations, pre-and post-War, and let them be submitted to the judgment of those who come forward with impartial minds. I am no teetotaler, but I do want to see a comparison with the kind of house that exists in that area. I have been at Maryport on a miners' festal day, and I have sat in a house, which was a disgrace to Maryport in pre-War days, where a man and his wife can now sit at
a table and have any kind of drink they like under the best possible conditions. I submit that the photograph of that place as it existed before control ought to be before every Member of the House before they venture to pass judgment.

Question put, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish State management of the liquor trade."

The House proceeded to a division, and Colonel Sir Arthur Holbrook and Mr. Hailwood were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but, there being no Member, willing to act as Teller, for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKERdeclared that the Ayes had it.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Colonel Sir Arthur Holbrook and Mr. Hailwood.

STATE MANAGEMENT (LIQUOR TRADE) ABOLITION BILL,

"to abolish State management of the liquor trade," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 127.]

RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 123.]

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

LOCAL ELECTIONS (PROPORT REPRESENTATION) BILL,

"to authorise the introduction of proportional representation in local elections; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Sir RYLAND ADKINS; supported by Mr. George Barnes, Colonel Morrison-Bell, Lord
Robert Cecil, Mr. Alexander Shaw, Mr. Marriott, Captain Coote, Mr. Aneurin Williams, and Mr. Frederick Roberts to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]

NEATH CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PLACES OF WORSHIP (ENFRANCHISEMENT) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 124.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Metropolitan Railway Bill, without Amendment.

Blackburn Corporation Bill.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to

Juries Bill [Lords].

Nottingham Corporation (Trent Navigation) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provision with respect to the qualifications of Judges of High Courts in British India." [Indian High Courts Bill [Lords.]

INDIAN HIGH COURTS BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 125.]

GOVERNMENT OF WALES BILL.

Order for resuming, upon Friday, Adjourned Debate [28th April] on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1922–23.

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE (NORTHERN IRELAND) GRANT.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £750,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for a Grant-in-aid to the Government of Northern Ireland in respect of Compensation for Damages arising out of the disturbed condition of Ireland.

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): This is an Unclassified Service that I am submitting to the House. It is an Estimate for £750,000, and it represents payment of the first half of the sum of £1,500,000 which His Majesty's Government have undertaken to place at the disposal of the Government of Northern Ireland in order to assist that Government in the discharge of awards for compensation under the Malicious Injuries (Ireland) Act. The agreement to pay this money was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, subject, of course, to the approval of this House, on behalf of the British Government, and by Sir James Craig, on behalf of the Government of Northern Ireland. Under the agreement, the payment of the first half is due on the 1st June next, and the payment of the second half on the 1st June, 1923. Before the latter payment can be made, another Vote will require to be taken, as it will fall in the financial year 1923–24. May I remind the Committee that the question of this agreement and of this total grant was fully discussed by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary on 24th February last in a comprehensive speech dealing with the question of compensation for malicious injuries to persons and to property both in Southern and in Northern Ireland? In pursuance
of that speech and of the agreement with the Northern Government, I submit the present Estimate. I will very briefly make a statement as to the present position.
Under the Malicious Injuries (Ireland) Acts compensation for damages to person or property in either Southern or Northern Ireland ought, in the normal way, to be paid by the ratepayers of the local authority, on which a local compensation rate should be levied. In Southern Ireland, for various reasons, principally because of the breakdown of all local government machinery during the recent troubles, the local authorities not only did not pay for damages in their areas, but in the great majority, of cases they did not contest or defend the claims made upon them for such damages. In consequence of that state of things, the Commission which was promised on the 24th February last has since been set up, under the Right Hon. Lord Shaw, one of the Law Lords, with a representative of the Provisional Government and a representative of His Majesty's Government. They are beginning their work, under the Terms of Reference (which have already been presented to this House), this week in Ireland. Under the terms on which this Commission is set up, and which have been fully discussed at different times in the House, Lord Shaw and his colleagues have full powers to deal with all awards that have been made in reference to damage to property in Southern Ireland, except in regard to those which have been defended by the local authority, in which cases the Commission cannot, except to establish the identity of persons and minor matters of that kind, re-open the question of the amount. It means that, so far as these damages are concerned, the local ratepayer has been saved the expense that would fall upon him under the Malicious Injuries Acts in Southern Ireland. In answer to a question to-day, I was able to assure hon. Members interested in this question that, although the Commission commences its work in Dublin, I have no doubt it will lay down suitable procedure to meet the case of a witness or applicant, who feels that he may be exposed to danger if required to go to any part of Ireland, by which he may give his evidence or make his statement in some other suitable place. As there are a large number of hon. Members
concerned on this point, I hope my statement will re-assure them.
In Northern Ireland all the local authorities regularly met the awards under the Malicious Injuries Acts that were made against them by the County Court Judges. Early, however, in 1921 representatives of the Northern area waited upon different Members of His Majesty's Government and pointed out that it was very unfair that they should be required to shoulder, as ratepayers, the cost of making good the very heavy damages resulting from the conflict in Northern Ireland, whereas it was perfectly clear that the ratepayers in Southern Ireland would not pay, and probably could not be compelled to pay, the damages in their part of Ireland. On the conclusion of the Treaty with the representatives of Southern Ireland, the point was taken up by the representatives of the Northern Government, and after conference and discussion His Majesty's Government, as set out on 24th February last by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, agreed to pay, in full discharge of any alleged liability for damages in the Northern area, the sum of £1,500,000, half of it to be paid this year and half next year.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want to clear up one point. Does the Northern Government pay nothing at all to make good the damage? Do we bear the whole of it?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This is not the total damage in the Northern area.

Mr. DEVLIN: Answer the question. That is not what he asked.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: One hon. Member at a time. This is not the total damage in the Northern area, and I will give the figures to make it perfectly clear. The total estimated claims up to the 14th January—for this agreement was arrived at on the 14th January of this year and refers to damages up to that date—amounted to £4,600,000, the total awards from June, 1920, amounted to about £1,120,000, and the total claims then unheard just under £2,000,000. It would mean that the total awards against the local authorities in Northern Ireland
would be something over £2,000,000. Towards that we are contributing by agreement £1,500,000, half payable this year and half payable next year. I hope that answers my hon. and gallant Friend's question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What is the Northern Parliament paying—not the local authorities, but the Northern Parliament?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot say that, for this reason, that we make an agreement with the Northern Government, and they take this sum of money in the two moieties I have mentioned. They make the best terms they can with their own local authorities and the claims against the local authorities, and I do not know any way in which you can deal with a Government except through its members. We thought that was a satisfactory arrangement and one that absolved us—and that means this House—absolutely of all claims that might be made against us or that could be made against us up to the 14th January of this year. I do not think that I can say anything further on this particular point. The whole question of malicious injuries is perfectly familiar by this time, I should think, to every Member of the House, and the difference in the treatment between Southern and Northern Ireland, I think, was amply justified by the facts of the case. That difference in treatment has been made by agreement with the Southern Government and the Northern Government respectively.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: How did you arrive at the proportion in which the injuries to the North were to be satisfied and the injuries to the South were to be satisfied from British funds?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I think the hon. and gallant Member has forgotten the Debate of the 24th February, in which he took a part. In reference to Southern Ireland, all personal injury awards are paid by the respective Governments, namely, the Provisional Government or the Imperial Government. As to property cases, damage done by the forces of the Crown will be paid, after the award has been settled by Lord Shaw's Commission, by the Crown—that is, by this Government—subject to confirmation by this House. Damage done by the sup-
porters of Sinn Fein must be met by them. Let me make this perfectly clear. The difference is, that in the Northern area the local authorities have not refused to function and to meet the awards that were given by the County Court judges from time to time as the damage was proven and levied on the local areas. In Southern Ireland, namely, in the 20 counties, the local authorities did not function, and, therefore, it was impossible to make the same arrangement with the South as we made with the North. My best argument to the House is this: These two different systems of meeting claims were made after consultation with the heads of the respective Governments, and as they are satisfied, I think, in so far as the system is concerned, the House will be satisfied. As to the amount of £1,500,000, it was arrived at after a series of conferences between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland primarily, and it was considered that this was a fair amount for His Majesty's Government to contribute towards those damages.

Captain BENN: Perhaps I can put my point quite clearly. What proportion of the total claims put forward in the South and the North, respectively, is being met by grants from British funds?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I could not give the hon. and gallant Member that for the South, because the exact amount of the awards cannot be fixed until Lord Shaw's Commission has completed its work. The only awards that have been fixed are those that were defended—a comparatively small sum. The main object of appointing the Commission was to deal with awards that were very possibly excessive because they had not been defended or contested in the local courts by the local authorities, who in the normal way, and as happened in Northern Ireland, would contest these claims in the interests of their own ratepayers. The local authorities not having contested them, the county court judge was compelled to go upon the claim of the applicant only, and we think that many of the awards so granted were excessive. Hence the right hon. and learned Judge has undertaken—very patriotically, I think—this very difficult and onerous work of trying to fix what is the right award to be given. Therefore I cannot give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the total
amount that the Government will be asked to pay in reference to damages in Southern Ireland, but I can give him the total of what they will be asked to pay in reference to damages in Northern Ireland. That is contained in this Estimate of £750,000 and a similar Estimate that will be submitted next financial year. I hope I have made perfectly clear to the Committee the reason for this grant, and I hope also the Committee will grant it.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I be permitted to clarify the obscurities of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, because, notwithstanding the somewhat pointed and intelligent interruptions which came from this side of the House, the right hon. Gentleman has pursued his usual tactics of trying to bluff us on this question. What really is the position in regard to this matter? During the conflict and troubles through which Ireland has passed during the last two or three years, considerable damage has been done to life and property. As part of the war, damage was clone by the combatants on the Sinn Fein side; as part of the peace, damage was done by the Black and Tans on the Government side; and the result is that the enormous expenditure in connection with all these criminal injuries has to be met. The Government of this country and the Provisional Government have come to an arrangement, which is that the Provisional Government will saddle themselves with the responsibility for all the expenditure in connection with criminal damages for which their followers were responsible, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this country makes himself responsible for all the damage that was done by the officers of the British Government—by the military and police and Black and Tans.
That I consider to be a very fair arangement. It is a somewhat curious commentary upon the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman that he now admits, in the form of a financial contribution, how much damage was done by his agents in Ireland during that period; but I do not propose to go into that. One thing is clear—and it is the only thing that is clear in his speech—that he has made himself responsible for all the cost of damage done by the Government agents, that the Provisional Government have made themselves
responsible for all the damage done by their supporters in Southern Ireland, and that the British Government is to pay £1,500,000 for damage done by the followers of the Northern Government. I think the Committee now understands that that is precisely the position. I have no objection to the Chancellor of the Exchequer granting £1,500,000, or £5,500,000, for this purpose, if English Members stand it. I take it that they do stand it. In fact, they stand it with so much patience that they run away from it to the smoking rooms and else where in this House, and all these anti wasters, these economists, and these gentlemen who, on all the platforms of England, have made the welkin ring about the gross and profligate expenditure of this Government—where are they now? But it is not my concern; I am not one of the watch-dogs of the British Treasury. I think there is not a single representative of the Treasury this afternoon on the Government Bench. Last night the Government allowed themselves to be defeated, rather than concede a legitimate claim made by the most efficient and useful branch of the public service in this island. They allowed themselves to he defeated on a question of £2,000,000, and yet here they are giving £1,500,000 to the Northern Parliament. As I say, it is no concern of mine; I do not care whether it is £5,000,000. It may be £5,000,000 before the right hon. Gentleman has done with it, but not one of these anti-wasters, not one of these economists, not one of these gentlemen, who, as I say, have been making the welkin ring about the expenditure of the British Government is here to take a stand against this expenditure.
The right hon. Gentleman laid down a dictum, which I do not accept. He said if the Provisional Government be satisfied in Southern Ireland, and the Northern Government be satisfied in Northern Ireland, then everybody ought to be satisfied. Well, I am not satisfied, and I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why. I do not know of any greater cause for the degradation of our Parliamentary institutions, for the ruin of the constitutional spirit, which is disappearing day by day, and the universal despising of Parliament, than the way we Ulster Nationalist representatives have been treated in this
House. The damage that has been done in Northern Ireland has been done mainly to constituents of mine. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There have been 5,000 Catholic workers driven from their employment. How much of this money is to go to them, to compensate them for the long and weary travail through which they have passed? I do not know what the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Wilson) is laughing at. After all, I was speaking—not he; therefore, I do not see what there was to laugh at. We are now in the Imperial Parliament. and not in North Down, where the hon. and gallant Member has not been a pioneer of Empire, but a pioneer of hatred for some time past. This may be a matter of merriment to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but it is not a matter of merriment to the humble toilers in the humble parts of Belfast, with the shadow of unemployment over them, with starvation at their door, with darkened hearths—these are the people who have been the sufferers of the war in Northern Ireland, and what will be their part of the contribution which this Parliament is making through an empty House of Commons to this Northern Government? My complaint is that those who represent the people, those who represent the minority in North-East Ulster, ought to have been consulted, but not one of them was ever consulted about this money, or about the method by which it was to be expended.
I come to the second consideration. In Southern Ireland there is to be a Commission set up to reconsider all these claims, and, finally, to make adjustments. Why is there not a Commission set up in Northern Ireland? In Northern Ireland we have 300,000 of a Catholic population. They have been victimized: they have been maltreated; they have been hunted from their employment; they have been denied the ordinary rights of citizenship, and many of them have lost all the property they had. I believe there are something like 200 shopkeepers who have had their premises burned down, who have never been allowed back in those places, and the right hon. Gentleman talks about the satisfaction that has been given by the judgments of the Recorder. I know of dozens of cases where men were making £1,000 a year, and they got an award of £1,500, and it was not immediately paid over, as the right hon. Gen-
tleman wanted to convey. It is to cover a period of five years, so that if a man's business has been destroyed he has no chance of establishing it again. He gets £300 a year for five years, and then everything disappears. And that is the compensation which the right hon. Gentleman says was so adequate and so satisfactory that it did not need reconsideration or supervision. May I read to the Committee one or two letters which I have received from some of these people? I will give the right hon. Gentleman these letters if he wants them. During the last 12 months I have showered letters on the right hon. Gentleman containing the most tragic accounts from these poor people of their conditions, and asking that something should be done. Here is one letter which I have received, amongst a number, which I can send to the right hon. Gentleman:
I trust you will pardon my taking the liberty of writing you, being one of your constituents, and appealing to you for advice. My occupation is a shipyard labourer. I was hunted from my works in July, 1920. The same night my arm was blown off by shots whilst standing at my own door. I was in hospital for 14 weeks, and when I came home I was told by my solicitor that I was too late to lodge a claim for compensation. We have been in great poverty. I have a wife and three children dependent on me for support, and I am disabled for life, through no fault of my own. I ask you, as an act of charity, to put my case before the proper authority, or to render me any assistance that lies in your power.
May I ask what relief is to be given to this man? Before what tribunal will he appear?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. Gentleman appeals to me on the point. I am going to ask the House, on behalf of the Government, following an agreement between Mr. Collins and Sir James Craig at the Colonial Office on the 21st March last, for a Supplementary Estimate of £500,000 for relief work in Belfast, and every effort will be made to restore the expelled workmen, with whom everybody sympathises.

Mr. DEVLIN: Really, is the right hon. Gentleman serious? Here is a man maimed for life, having lost his arm, being incapable of work, with several little children bordering on starvation, and you are going to give another £500,000 for work for people in Belfast. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest
that it meets this case. I want to speak for the people for whom I stand. In this House, all through this controversy, I have stood for the non-combatants, for the innocent people who belong to neither of the conflicting parties, for the men and women who are not responsible for the bloodshed and horrors which have discredited the country. These are the people for whom I stand, and this is only one of many, many cases. I want to know what is to be done to compensate a man of this character, who is typical of a large class. The right hon. Gentleman has not told me what is to be done in this case, but I shall expect him to tell me before the Debate is over. I will read another letter:
I trust you will pardon my troubling you again regarding the case of my late husband, who was shot. I respectfully beg to bring to your notice the compensation which is being awarded to wives and families in the same condition as myself. I am destitute, with seven children, ranging from 18 months to 18 years. My husband was a most inoffensive man. He was going to his work at 6.30 in the morning, and was shot. I was recommended, at the time of the inquest, to the consideration of the Government. I would be glad, in view of present rates of compensation that are being granted, if you will please get my case reopened, and try if anything can be done to relieve me in the present critical position.
Another man writes that he had no knowledge at the time that compensation was to be paid for injuries, and he neglected to make a claim. Legal opinion is that the claim has lapsed. Then I come to the case of damage to property. I take the case of a leading business man in one of the Northern towns, and I will give his letter also to the right hon. Gentleman, if he desires to have it. His factory was burned down. This man employed something like 100 men. His manager and 60 of the men were Protestants, but he himself was a Catholic, and his factory was burned down. He made a claim for £55,000, and he got a little over £30,000. The man can never start his business again, and these people are all out of employment. Is there to be no revision of a case of this character? Is there to be no appeal tribunal before whom this gentleman can go and have his claim reheard? I want the Committee to remember that the right hon. Gentleman has made a great case of how the claims came in the normal fashion before these Ulster Courts, and how these Ulster Courts, taking these cases in the normal way, gave
judgment according to the spirit of justice. That is perfectly true, but there was always this in the mind of the judge, who was the final arbiter—"I must watch that I do not saddle the ratepayers with an enormous burden. I must see that this terrific burden must not be allowed to bear down the ratepayers." Therefore, the awards they made, so far from being generous, were so meagre as to be almost unjust; but I am quite certain that if these judges had known that this Imperial Parliament was going to give a grant—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Is anything else suggested? The one idea running through all the considered judgments of these learned Recorders and County Court Judges was, that really this would be a terrific burden upon the ratepayers. But if they had known that this Parliament was to be asked to provide £1,500,000 for the purpose of paying these damages, then I say that a larger measure of generosity, or justice rather, would have been shown to the claims when they came before those Courts.
I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had any statement to make, or will give us some explanation of what the Lord Chancellor meant the other day when in the House of Lords he made this statement:
Lord Carson has said with truth that terrible and appalling things have taken place in Belfast. He says they are the reaction of that which has taken place in the rest of Ireland. I am not concerned to dispute or confirm that opinion, but it is true that Catholics, in circumstances revolting to every humane man, have been done to death in the North of Ireland in the last few months, and even in the last two weeks. It is equally true that in other parts of Ireland Protestants, by what is described as a 'pogram,' have been murdered in circumstances of terrible barbarity.
Then he goes on to say that he is going to take steps to relieve these victims both in the South and in the North, and that the Government propose to give a grant for the purpose of relieving the victims in both parts of the country. I should like something more explicit than that statement. I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether a Commission is to be set up in the North of Ireland for the purpose of dealing with these eases. I say further that it seems to me—and I think many Members of this House will agree—that when a matter of this sort comes to be decided, that when
the Government has consulted everybody inside this House and outside this House, that, at all events, the representatives of the most vital part of the community ought to have been consulted as to what should be done.
I quite realise that behind me I have no votes in this House: therefore I lack effectiveness. I quite agree that I cannot go out and throw bombs or use revolvers and rifles, and, therefore, the Government pay little heed. There is only the power of the vote in this House and the power of the rifle in the country which can compel a sense of justice in these men. That is all. Everyone sees and realises that. Mere moral right, the justice of a claim, an unquestioned grievance, the persecution of a people—none of these things count at all so long as people are represented only by the voice of reason in the constitutional assembly of the nation. I say that the sooner you get away from that the better. I represent here a large body of people who do not take any part whatever in politics. They are faithful citizens, discharging their duties as they should, pursuing civic virtue, labouring when they can get labour, and bearing the terrible persecution to which they have been subjected with a superb patience, a fortitude and a lack of resentment to which I think you will find no parallel anywhere.
This Government has assumed the responsibility for a part at least of the financial burden of the wrong that has been done. I claim that the only way in which justice can be done is by appointing an impartial commission, first of all to reconsider all the claims and awards that has been made in North-East Ulster, and, secondly, a Commission that will take into consideration the claims of the expelled workers. Five hundred thousand pounds has been spent in weekly doles to the expelled workers—the voluntary contributions of humane men, not only at home but abroad. Why should private individuals, moved by a sense of indignation, and a sense of justice, be compelled to pay £500,000 to keep these people from hunger and distress, when you are giving £1,500,000 to a Parliament which represents the men who did these deeds? Not a single farthing of this money is to be given back—I refer to the £500,000. Then there are hundreds of people who have been maimed and wounded for life.
What redress is to be given to them? These are considerations I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman. I want further to say that I trust that this vote will not be smuggled through the House, through an empty House, but that it will have discussion, for it is public money which is to be devoted to public purposes, and it ought to cover all those public purposes, and not part of them. I trust a satisfactory answer will be given to all the suggestions which I have made. Whatever is left of the spirit of justice amongst British Members in this House will, I trust, assert itself to see that the people who were the innocent victims of this War will at least be compensated to an equal degree with those who have been responsible for what has occurred.

Captain C. CRAIG: I want to say two or three words in reply to the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Devlin). First of all, I would like to remind him, and the Committee, that if he is really anxious to help the Government of Northern Ireland in the matter of recompensing the persons who have suffered from personal injuries inflicted upon them, or who have had their property destroyed, he knows how he can do it. He knows that every Unionist Member of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and particularly the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, is most anxious that every Nationalist who has been elected to that House should take his seat in the House and take part in its deliberations. The hon. Gentleman knows that if that were done, that if he and his Nationalist colleagues in that Parliament had taken their seats, they would have most certainly been consulted, and their advice would have been sought as to what should be done in the matter with which we are now dealing. There is nothing which the Unionists and Protestants in the North of Ireland more ardently desire than that the Nationalists should come forward and take their proper place in the government of Northern Ireland. Instead of finding fault with the Government in this House for what it is doing, I respectfully suggest to the hon. Member that it would be much better if he would take what is obviously his proper place, and perform what is obviously his duty by taking that place in the Northern Parliament, and helping to bring the
horrible condition of things which unfortunately exists in Belfast, as well as other parts of Ireland, to an end.
In respect of the grant that this House is asked to make to the Northern Government., I should just like to remind the Committee of what has been done there. It is true that the Chief Secretary has already placed the facts before the Committee; but I should like to say something. First of all, with regard to compensation for malicious injuries—which is a peculiar form of compensation, peculiar to Ireland, and does not exist in this country—everything has been done in the most orderly and legal way in dealing with these claims. When the injuries were committed, claims were put forward, and they have been tried by properly constituted tribunals. Even the hon. Member himself did not suggest that the judges of these tribunals have acted otherwise than in a perfectly fair and straightforward manner. If this grant is not made, I have no doubt that, in spite of the terrific burden which it will impose upon the ratepayers, these claims will be paid, even to the extent of the £1,200,000. I am speaking now only of the cases which have been dealt with. There are many cases which have not yet been heard.
I am very much interested in this matter because the chief town in my constituency has suffered more heavily in the destruction of property, perhaps, than any other place in the Northern area. The rate—I forget what it is, it is a perfectly appalling rate—that has been put on this town is one which it is almost impossible for the ratepayers to pay. Our contention is simply this: that these disturbances, which ended in the destruction of so much property, was not the fault of the people of Northern Ireland. It was due to a state of affairs, or circumstances, over which the inhabitants of Northern Ireland had no control. Let me refer to a particular case. This the House will remember it when I give some of the details. On a certain Sunday morning an officer of the Royal Irish Constabulary was returning from church with some friends, when he was brutally murdered in broad daylight, and in the main street of the town. It may have been wrong for my constituents in that town to lose their heads, to see red, and to behave as they
did, but while I deplore as much as anyone could do the horrible excesses which were committed, I cannot say I do not sympathise with the people to some extent in the fact that they lost control of themselves in the circumstances. The murderers of this police officer were men who came from the South of Ireland. That was conclusively proved.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman this? He says that people from the South of Ireland committed this murder. Why, then, was £200,000 worth of Catholic property burned and 1,500 Catholics turned out of the town if they were not responsible?

Captain CRAIG: I have an explanation of that. First of all, I deny that that amount of Catholic property was destroyed. The vast bulk of the property belonged to Protestants. It is true that the tenants were in many cases Roman Catholics, but the whole losses fell on the shoulders of Protestants. That is a fact of which I should have thought the hon. Member was well aware. In the second place, the point is that this tremendous loss of property was caused by people who came from outside the Northern area altogether, and murdered a perfectly innocent police officer. It is true that the people lost their heads and committed these excesses, and there has been brought down on the shoulders of the innocent ratepayers of that district this enormous burden, but we say that as this was a matter for which Northern Ireland was not primarily responsible, it is not unfair that this country should be asked to help us in our difficulties. The same argument applies to other of these outrages and the destruction of property for which compensation is to be paid, and which are the outcome of the general condition of affairs which have existed in Ireland for the last four or five years. I think that even hon. Members of this House will admit that the Government of this country is at least as much responsible for that state of affairs as are the people of Ulster. That being so we maintain that there is an obligation on the Government to help us. I sincerely trust that the Committee will pass this grant, and will thereby remove that tremendous incubus and burden from the shoulders of a young State which has just begun to function, a
burden which will handicap it in a very serious way if it is to be allowed to remain.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £500,000.
5.0 P.M.
The more this Debate proceeds the more I am astounded, and I beg hon. Members who represent English, Scottish and Welsh constituencies to carefully consider the situation. This is a Vote for £750,000 as a first instalment of £1,500,000 on account of damage done in Northern Ireland. There is another £500,000 for some other form of compensation, I believe to shipyard workers, and another £1,000,000 grant-in-aid for same undisclosed purpose if and when this Vote is passed. This is only the beginning of a vast system of subsidies which we have to pay to the Northern Government of Ireland. The one thing English people were congratulating themselves upon was that at any rate for some time we were quit of the Irish problem, and quit of all responsibility for the maintenance of law and order which was to be carried out by Irishmen themselves. The very last thing that the ordinary man in the street thought of was that we should be called upon to foot the bill for the extraordinary occurrences of the last few months.
I am very sorry that the Government are not appealing to the country immediately because then we should have had a very good opportunity of enlightening the electors as to what they are in for. Take the lamentable case put forward by the hon. Member for Antrim in regard to the Lisburn case. An officer of the Royal Irish Constabulary is brutally murdered in this town, and such murders have been condemned in every part of this House. Thereupon the people of the town rise in their wrath and do damage by burning their neighbours' property, and driving people away from their work, and this leads to a heavy burden on the ratepayers of the town. They do this, lose their heads, and as the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Craig) has said, they see red; but we are to pay, notwithstanding our own burdens from the War, at a time when taxation is throttling and strangling our trade, and at a time when we have to strain our bargains with employés, and when we are endeavouring to make both ends meet. We are asked to pay because
the constituents of the hon. and gallant Member see red and commit appalling excesses.
There is some excuse for some payment being made in the case of Southern Ireland because the damage there was admitted done in many cases by our own soldiers and police, the Black and Tans, and so on. Some sort of case can be made out for payments of this kind by this House for damage committed by our own forces in Southern Ireland. I do not want to go into the details, but this damage was done by our own soldiers, while the damage in Northern Ireland was not done by British soldiers but, in the majority of eases, by the inhabitants of those towns themselves. Because in one street you have Catholics and in the next street Protestants, who fight together and burn each other's houses, the people of this country are being called upon to foot the bill. I consider that we should resist this claim to the utmost because it is unjust. I do not wish to offend anyone's susceptibilities, but I think it is an effrontery to ask us to pay this money. The Government of Northern Ireland has been functioning fully as to its control of the police with power to call in the military, and they have had all the functions of government for some nine months, and I do not think I am wrong when I say that a good deal of that damage has been done during that time.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The amount payable under this Estimate and under the Estimate for next year is for damage up to 14th January of the present year.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not pretend to be so familiar with the position of things in Ireland because it is not my business. I am here representing an English constituency, and I am trying to protect the English taxpayer, and I am very glad to be corrected if I am wrong in my facts. But even then this damage was done by the subjects of the Government of Northern Ireland, and they should foot the bill, and we. should not be called upon to pay reparation for damage committed by the subjects of Northern Ireland while that Government has a pound in its Exchequer. The excesses in Lisburn were deplorable, but I think it is a good principle that these people should be taught that it is expen-
sive to burn their neighbours' property. Certain Acts of Parliament may be passed which these people do not approve of, and they may be encouraged to commit these excesses again and destroy property, and I am afraid in some cases kill and murder. I want them to pay for the damage themselves. One reason for making the Germans pay was said to be that it would teach them not to go to war another time.

Sir F. YOUNG: You do not want the Germans to pay.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: One of the arguments used in all parts of the House was that the payment of reparations would be a worthy lesson, and in the same way I want the people of Northern and Southern Ireland to be shown that it does not pay to destroy their own property, and it is not fair to ask the overburdened taxpayers of this country to foot the bill. [Laughter.] In spite of the laughter of hon. Members opposite, I repeat that some case can be made out for doing something in this respect in regard to the damage done by our own troops in Southern Ireland, but I cannot see why we should make good at the expense of our depleted Exchequer the damage done by rioters and people who see red. I would like to clear up the question of the actual amount involved. The awards come to £1,200,000, and there are further claims amounting to £2,000,000. I believe the right hon. Gentlemen mentioned that the total amount involved was £4,600,000.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The total estimated claims were £4,000,000 up to 14th January of this year. The total estimated claims amount to £4,600,000; the total awards are about £1,120,000, and the total of the claims yet unheard will probably be about £2,000,000. Therefore on the total awards against local authorities in Northern Ireland, the amount would be £2,000,000. That is to say, that the total amount of all the awards for damage done prior to 14th January, which have been settled by the courts would be about £2,000,000.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: And of that. £2,000,000 we are to pay £1,500,000, and I assume the other £500,000 is to be paid by the local authorities.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Or by the Government of Northern Ireland.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Then the Government of Northern Ireland really are paying nothing. I do not think it matters much whether it is paid by the local authorities or the Government of Northern Ireland, but we want to know what is being done. We have continually heard throughout these long years of controversy that Belfast and the six Northern counties were the most prosperous and wealthy part of Ireland. We have had that drummed into our ears, and those of us who have visited those counties know that they are a very wealthy community. Therefore I think it is monstrous that they should expect us to pay in this proportion. This damage was done by the people domiciled in Lisburn.

Mr. LINDSAY: I understand that the compensation is for damage done in respect of life as well as property.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I understand that a great deal of property was burned and a rate has been struck which the ratepayers cannot possibly pay. Out of this £2,000,000 we are to pay £1,500,000, and this wealthy principality in the richest part of Ireland is only going to pay £500,000 for damage done by its own people. I think it is monstrous and it is only necessary to make it known to the taxpayers of this country to make the whole of this business impossible, and throw the Government out of office. Yesterday we heard a great deal about the need for economy. We were discussing the question of pensions for our own English teachers. During the whole of the Debate the House was crowded and the scenes were enthusiastic. Here we are paying people now under another Government, a solvent Government, independent of us, this big sum of money. I make my protest here. It may not be of much use. We may give a score of votes in the Lobby, but the Government can drive this thing through with their Whips. It is not often we can get Members supporting the Government to vote with us. The Government have only suffered defeat four times since the General Election and they are not likely to do it again, at any rate for some weeks to come. But do not let them go about the country claiming that they are advocates of
economy when they are undertaking obligations of this sort—obligations which we look upon as bribes at our expense to a Government which ought to be well able to pay for the effect of its own weakness in failing to maintain proper order. This is not the last the Government will hear of this. Possibly this will be one of the last Bills which will be presented to us. In moving the reduction of this Vote by £500,000 I invite hon. Members to think of the terrible burden which is placed on the English, Scottish and Welsh taxpayers, and to think twice before they vote against the reduction.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: There is another side of the question, so far as the English Member is concerned, to that which has just been put by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I approach the matter certainly from a slightly different point of view. I think we may take it for granted that a great deal of this damage was the result of a political contest fought, not with ordinary political weapons—arguments and reason—but with bombs and revolvers. It was a contest between the Sinn Feiners of the South of Ireland and the representatives of this Imperial Parliament. Really most of the damage in Northern Ireland, in spite of the fact that the majority of the population there are perfectly loyal to the Crown, represents an overflow of the terrific turmoil which has taken place in Southern Ireland, and if the Northern Parliament and the Northern people up to the time that the responsibility was handed over to them—sometime this year —have agreed to foot one-third of a bill which is a result of the policy voted upon and decided by this House, instead of it being suggested that we are generous, I think it must be admitted that they have taken a fair share of the responsibility. If it be true, as is suggested by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that this agreement is final, so far as malicious damage is concerned in the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland, then I am sure there are many who will be perfectly satisfied with the arrangement.
I am more concerned in the other direction. My hon. and gallant. Friend says he does not see why we should contribute anything to that part of the Irish community which is willing to live in peace, harmony and brotherhood with ourselves.
He says too that the British taxpayer would be much concerned at having to contribute a single cent to those who wish to be our neighbours and friends, and to be at one with us in this United Kingdom. He feels that the whole of the taxpaying community in England will be wroth with the Government because it does not promise unlimited compensation to those who have fought and struggled with us in the last two or three years in the South of Ireland. I do not think he is interpreting arightly the feelings of English taxpayers when he suggests that that will be their view. I believe he will find later on, even in his own constituency, that there will be ample generosity on the part of the English community towards those who wish to live in comfort and peace with us, and if there is any niggardly scrutiny of this kind of expenditure, it certainly will be in the direction of expenditure in the South of Ireland.

Mr. DEVLIN: The South is not getting any of this money.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I am aware of that, but will the hon. Gentleman allow me for the moment to test the view expressed by the hon. and gallant Member as the view of people whom I represent? I am not so satisfied as to the accuracy of the view he has put forward. There is another thing about which I am not satisfied. I should like to know more about the Commission which has been appointed. I am fearful as to the bill which will be eventually presented to this House for damage in the South. The appointment, of this Commission is a step in that direction, and I only wish my hon. Friend the Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) could be induced to make as eloquent a speech against the Bill to which I am referring as he has delivered this afternoon. It is on the question of that Bill I want to say a word or two. An immense amount of the damage, the overwhelming part of it, has been done in the South by the enemies of England—by those who are in conflict with our Government. It is a well-know fact that one single act of incendiarism, the burning of the Custom House, has involved a loss of nearly £2,000,000. Is this Commission to have a right to go over to Ireland and saddle us here in England with the cost of that. treasonable act? If so, although I have never voted against any grants which have been suggested
for any part of Ireland, yet I think I shall be tempted to vote against the Government if it is suggested that, as a result of the inquiry by the Commission presided over by Lord Shaw, we are to be saddled with the cost of that act.
Again, there has been the destruction of the general post. office in Dublin, and there have been many other malicious acts involving probably a loss of from £10,000,000 to £30,000,000. Judging from the answers which have been given in this House at different times, at least £20,000,000 has admittedly been lost by acts of malicious damage done by the open avowed enemies of the Government of this country. I am going to insist, as far as I can, on ascertaining what is to be the limit of our liabilities. Of course, we are responsible for the damage done by our own forces in the South of Ireland. I do not dispute that in any way whatsoever, but I hope the investigations of this Commission will be limited to that one point, and that it will not attempt to saddle us with the cost of the destruction of the Custom House, of the post office, of police barracks, and of military barracks and of other property. We certainly ought not to be saddled with claims of that character. I do not suppose for one minute that it will be possible to make terms with the South of Ireland similar to those which have been come to with the Government of the North of Ireland—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to use his arguments relative to the South for purposes of comparison, but I think he is paying too much attention to the position as it affects the Southern part of Ireland.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I am afraid I have been misled in that direction largely by the arguments used by two previous speakers. I want it to he perfectly well understood that, in my opinion, the people of this country will not hesitate to supply the necessary funds to that part of Ireland which is anxious to live in peace and amity with us, and I am sure it will scrutinise in the severest manner any attempt to place upon us the burden of the acts of our avowed enemies.

Mr. ADAMSON: I do not propose to follow the line taken by the last two speakers, for I want to deal with the Vote
before the Committee from a particular point of view. The hon. and gallant Member for South Antrim (Captain Craig) said that, in consequence of the responsibility of the Government for many of the happenings in Ireland, he thought that this country was bound to help so far as meeting the damage was concerned, and I do not know that that would he seriously contested by the Committee. One of the things, however, upon which I am certain the Committee would like to be assured, is that, in passing a Vote of this character, which has for its object the compensation of people who have suffered either personally or materially, all sections of the people of Ireland are to be justly and fairly treated in connection with the payment of that compensation. I think that in the consideration of the payment of compensation a section of the people of Northern Ireland have been overlooked, and it is for them that I desire to speak. The hon. Member for Falls (Mr. Devlin) stated in the course of his eloquent speech that he was putting the special case of that section of the people of Northern Ireland who were willing to labour and were prevented from doing so; and he stated that that section of the Irish people had had to be compensated largely by private charity. I think he said that no less a sum than £500,000 had been contributed from various sources for the purpose of helping to maintain them.
I want to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary to the fact that the sum mentioned by the hon. Member for Falls did not entirely account for all that had to he done on behalf of that section of the people of Northern Ireland, namely, the organised workers who were thrown out of employment in the shipyards. That £500,000 did not represent all that it had cost to maintain these nice and their dependants. The attention of the Labour party has been drawn time after time to the fact that, on account of the prevention of those men from following their usual employment in the shipyards and elsewhere, many of our trade unions have had to incur a heavy liability. I have here a communication from the secretary of one of our trade unions to the secretary of the Labour party, asking that, when we are considering this question of compensation for damage done in Northern Ireland, we should urge upon
the Chief Secretary and the Committee the necessity for taking into consideration the large amount of money that has had to be expended by the trade unions of the country in maintaining the men and women who are being brutally forced out of employment, particularly in Belfast. This secretary goes on to say that his own union has not only had to pay out-of-work benefit to these men and women, but that there has also been a very substantial bill for replacing tools belonging to the members which were deliberately destroyed. That alone has cost this union no less a sum than £3,000. He goes on to say that the cost of out-of-work benefit to their members who were thrown out of employment in this way—men whose only crime was that they were Catholics and trade unionists—[Interruption]—amounted to no less a sum than £10,000, in addition to the £3,000 which I have already mentioned for tools that had been wantonly destroyed.

Sir FREDERICK YOUNG: Who were the other people who threw them out of employment? Were they trade unionists?

Mr. ADAMSON: Whether the people who were the cause of throwing them out of employment were trade unionists or not, here is a section of the community in Northern Ireland who have been prevented from working—

Sir F. YOUNG: The right hon. Gentleman said that their crime was that they were trade unionists.

Mr. ADAMSON: Their crime was that they were Catholics—

Sir F. YOUNG: And trade unionists?

Mr. ADAMSON: And sympathetic to the Labour movement. In addition to this letter, we have had a number of other communications of a similar character. The point that I desire to put to the Chief Secretary, and to the Committee before it becomes a consenting party to the voting of this £1,500,000 for the purpose shown in this Estimate, is whether these people for whom we are speaking are to be compensated for the loss they have sustained. Here is a trade union which has had to incur an expenditure of £13,000 for payment of out-of-work benefit and for replacing the tools of its members who were kept out of employment—who were refused liberty to follow their usual avocation. Many
other claims of a similar character can be put in. In awarding compensation, is the claim of these trade unions to be taken into account? That is the point that we should like the Chief Secretary, or whoever is to speak for the Government, to make clear before we are called upon to part with this £1,500,000. If this money is to be spent, we consider that the claims of all sections of the people of Ireland should be treated justly and equitably. Is the Chief Secretary prepared, in awarding that £1,500,000 of compensation, to see that the claims of the trade unions who have been put to this enormous expense are recognised and compensated with those of others? I am certain that, unless we can have an assurance from the Chief Secretary that the claims of all sections of the Irish people are to be equitably and justly recognised and dealt with, the Committee will have something to say before this substantial Estimate is passed, and I trust that, before this discussion is finished, the point will be dealt with satisfactorily on behalf of the Government.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I had not intended to take part in this Debate, but I should like to make one or two observations in reply to the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I entirely agree that in this matter of compensation there should be complete equality as between all sections and creeds who have just claims to compensation, wherever it comes from. I am perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman spoke in the sincere belief that everything he said was accurate, but I believe that he has been grossly misled and misinformed. I speak with some knowledge, but I do not want to he too dogmatic. I should, however, be extremely surprised if the trade unions, as such, have any claim whatever on the ground that the right hon. Gentleman has put forward. Let me examine for a moment this question of the men who have been driven out of employment in Belfast. I need not say that, so far from defending it, I deplore it very much, but the right hon. Gentleman says that they were driven out because they were Catholics and trade unionists. They were not driven out for either one of those reasons. They were not driven out because they were Catholics or because they were trade unionists. They were driven
out, in so far as they were driven out, because they were, or were believed to be, Sinn Feiners. They were believed to be dangerous, not only to their fellow-workers, but to their fellow-citizens. They were believed to be sympathisers with and participators in the deplorable circumstances which are familiar to all of us. I do not say that they were justly suspected; I do not know; but at all events that was the reason.
Now, it is unfortunately the fact, as we all know, that in Ireland, substantially speaking, the political line of division coincides with the religious line of division, and consequently, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, in nine cases out of 10, if a man is a Roman Catholic he belongs to the Nationalist. or to the Sinn Fein side of politics, while, if he is a Protestant, he belongs to the Unionist, or, as we call it, the Loyalist section of politics. It has followed From that that the men who were deplorably driven out of their employment on account of their political creed are able—I do not say purposely—to point to the fact that they were driven out because of their religious creed. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is not the true reason. Still less is it the case that they were driven out because they were trade unionists. As a matter of fact, those who have taken their places are trade unionists, and, from the point of view of loss to the trade union as such, it does not make the slightest difference whether a man who is out of employment is a Catholic or a Protestant. If the Catholics were all put back in employment the only result would be that the trade unions would have a number of unemployed Protestants on their hands. It came about in this way. During the War, a very large percentage of those who were employed in the shipyards of Belfast went into the Army, and went away to France. While they were away, the shipyard work was a most important industry, which it was absolutely essential to carry on, and the result was that during the War there was an influx into Belfast, and into the shipyards, of a very large number of Catholic workmen, who had not enlisted, from other outlying parts of Ireland; and they took the places of the Protestants who had gone into the Army. When the War was over, these men came
back from the Army, and they very naturally expected and hoped that they would he restored to their original employment. To what extent they were restored I am not able to say, but that complication came in just at the same time when the deplorable political complications were arising in Belfast. Those are the real reasons why those men were driven out. I am only dealing now with the point of view of the loss to the trade unionists.

Captain W. BENN: Will the hon. Member explain in connection with this matter, on which he is such an authority, what redress these Catholic workmen have for the losses they have suffered?

Mr. McNEILL: I am not on that point for the moment. I am only dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's point that the trade unions and not the individuals have a claim for compensation on two grounds, first that they had had to pay a large bill for the loss of tools and secondly that they have a large unemployed list, which they had before. With regard to the claim for tools I am not in a position to dispute what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It may be there is good ground for a claim on that head. As far as the other matter is concerned I believe it is a complete misconception to say that the trade unions have any claim. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asks what redress these men have. I do not know. I do not think it comes under this Vote. If he makes some suggestion or proposal for dealing with their wrongs, if they have them, I will give it my earnest consideration and will very Likely support it, but it is irrelevant to the present discussion. Unfortunately, there are only too many classes of people in Ireland at present who have borne infinitely greater sufferings and wrongs and, so far as I am able to judge, under any provision which may be made by the Government by local authorities or by public charity they are not likely to get any great redress. That is part of the result of the general condition of affairs in Ireland at present.
I should like to say one word upon the general question of the principle involved in this Vote. I do not think it is in the least necessary or desirable to say anything in reply to the speech of the hon
and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut. - Commander Kenworthy). It would not be worth while to do so, but I would say to anyone who, like him, thinks it is an outrageous thing that the people in Northern Ireland should get assistance from the Government in respect of property which has been destroyed by unknown persons in their own area that at all events the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot take that ground, because his own leaders and the Party to which he belongs set the example when they put upon the shoulders of British taxpayers—I thought at the time it was wrong—the burden of paying for the destruction of Dublin by the rebels in 1915. That was done by the Government of the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) and I suppose with the support of his Party. At all events, it does not lie in the mouths of those who supported that policy to say now it is an unjustifiable thing to ask the British taxpayer to assist the people in Northern Ireland who are suffering, not by any means under similar circumstances, from the destruction of their property. What is the principle? For a long time past in Ireland, owing to the fact that order, law and respect for property have never been on the same standard as in this country, they have to have this special legislation, known as the Malicious Injuries Act, in order to deal not only with isolated examples of malicious injury, which were more common there than here, but also to act as a deterrent, and it was enacted in that Statute that when a house or a stack of corn was burned or cattle were driven and it could be traced to a malicious act, the sufferer should be compensated out of the rates. During the last few years the condition of affairs in Ireland got to such a stage and the amount of malicious injury and damage to property was so great that to rely upon that Statute would simply bring the local authorities to bankruptcy. Consequently the only choice which the Government and Parliament had was either that the victims of malicious injury should go without any compensation at all or else that so long as the local resources held out the suffers should be compensated and after that you would have had a number of sufferers without any compensation, coupled with a number of local authorities in a state of insolvency.
That was the condition of affairs with which the Government was faced. I do not want on this occasion to go into any sort of political recriminations with regard to the past, but whatever view one takes of recent policy this is certainly true, that up to a few months ago it was this Government and this Parliament which were responsible for the administration of Northern Ireland. The murder of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke undoubtedly set fire to a train which has had many deplorable consequences. The Government were responsible for seeing that a proper state of law and order prevailed in that part of the country. The victim was under the protection of the Government when he was murdered in broad daylight. I do not impute personal responsibility, but that was the state of affairs in the country for which this Government and this Parliament were responsible, and it was not until March of the present year that even the nominal control of the police force was transferred to the Government of Northern Ireland. It was not, therefore, until March that they could be held to have any sort of responsibility for the administration of law and order. Under those circumstances is there anything unjust in asking that if the resources of the Malicious Injuries Act have to be supplemented, as everyone must admit they have, they must be supplemented by resources in the control of this Parliament. It would be absurd that they should be paid out of private pockets, because they are not deep enough, and it would be equally absurd and grossly unjust that they should be charged on the resources of the local authorities. This Parliament, which was responsible for law and order, in so far as it had failed to maintain law and order, and therefore enabled malicious injury on a large scale to be carried out, is justly responsible for such compensation as it may be necessary to give the sufferers, and it is for that reason that this Vote is a perfectly just one both on general principles and on the facts of the case, and I hope no hon. Member will be led away by the tub-thumping arguments which have been addressed and the appeal to the desire for economy, but will say that the question which has been put before the Committee by the Government is just and fair.

Colonel NEWMAN: This Debate has ranged over a rather wide area. I imagine that a good deal of it has been out of order. For instance, I do not think the money this country is going to give to help the Nationalist dockyard workers who were expelled and have suffered a certain amount of misery and inconvenience is under this Vote at ad. But assuming that it is, and admitting that I can for the purpose of comparison use the analogy that what is going to be done in the North will be done in the South, I can say how much better placed these persecuted Catholic workmen are than the persecuted loyalist refugees in the South of Ireland. These Catholic workmen are going to get a cut at a sum of something like £2,000,000. If they cannot get employment they will get some money given them. If they have lost their tools, either they will be restored or a money grant will be given. What does the Committee think of the analogous case of the refugees in the South of Ireland? Are they going to have a cut at £2,000,000? As a matter of fact, we heard the other day that a Committee was set up to go into all these cases of distress, the cases of these hundreds of people, men and women, who have been compelled at the point of the revolver to flee from their own country. What is it going to be for them? Exactly £;10,000. How well the Nationalist citizens of Belfast, who have to remain altogether apart and can take no part in active politics, and always keep the peace, are being treated as compared with the minority in the South, who as between the De Valera element and the Collins element also have to keep the peace. This Vote has been attacked and there is going to be a division on it, and it will very much interest me to see whether the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) will vote in the same Lobby. I do not think they will. I think we shall find the hon. Member for Falls voting with myself and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull against us.
6.0 P.M.
But let us remember the reason why this Vote has been put down. This is the result really of an agreement arrived at between what we may call the three "C's "—Sir James Craig, Mr. Collins and the Colonial Secretary. When we were passing the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act through its final stages,
and some of us were opposing it vigorously, the Colonial Secretary, on the last day, was able to announce that a great pact of peace had been arrived at between Mr. Collins, Sir James Craig and himself, and he appealed to the House to be generous and let this thing go through, and he told us then how the Government in their generosity were going to make this grant of money to the shipyard workers in Belfast, and all those who had suffered as the result of these sectarian controversies during the last two years. By means of that agreement he was able to get the Bill through quite easily, and it is through that agreement, therefore, that the whole of this money is to be paid. I shall vote for this money being given to Ulster, but I only wish we in the South could get the same generous terms. After all, it is, comparatively speaking, an accident that they are getting these terms. It is because in the North the local authorities did not defend claims for damages. When a house was burned in County Tyrone, Tyrone had a recalcitrate council which would not obey the orders of the Northern Irish Government. Supposing a mansion was burned in Tyrone, and the county council of Tyrone put in an appearance on behalf of the ratepayers. If they did, the man in Tyrone will get money granted to him by the Government. Supposing that across the border, in County Cavan, which is outside the six counties' area, a man's house was burned, simply because the local authority in County Cavan would not put in an appearance to test his claim, his claim is hung up and is to be inquired into again by Lord Shaw's Commission. That claim, even if it is allowed, is not going to be paid by the Treasury of this country. The man will have to take his chance of getting the money from the Provisional Government, when he can. Are any conditions attached to the payment of these claims? Where a man has had his house burned, his shop burned, his farm destroyed, and he is awarded compensation, are any conditions being attached to that award? In cases where a mansion has been burned or a shop or a farm in the six counties area, is it a condition that the house, the shop, or the farm shall be re-built with the money awarded? The House is dealing very generously, and rightly so, with those who suffered
in the six counties area, and when our time comes in the South, I hope that the House will deal generously with us.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The hon. Member who has just spoken has argued that because the Government have presented this Vote to-day pressure will be placed upon them in the coming months to grant greater compensation to Southern Ireland Taking into consideration the far greater damage that has been done in the South of Ireland, the Bill which will be presented to the House at a later date will be for a very much larger sum than the Bill presented to-day. I have risen to ask the Chief Secretary a few questions in connection with this Vote. If I understood him correctly, the Government of Northern Ireland are settling these claims themselves. More than one hon. Member has expressed doubt whether the claims of individuals would be favourably considered. My hon. Friend the Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) pleaded the case of the poor people whose claims may not be fairly considered by the authority which will administer this sum of money. Will it be administered by the County Courts in Ireland, or will there be a separate Commission appointed by the Government of Northern Ireland to settle these claims? The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) brought forward the claims of the trade unions. I have only to mention these two cases to show that there is considerable doubt in the minds of hon. Members as to whether the claims of individuals in Northern Ireland will be favourably and justly considered when this sum of money is being disbursed.
The hon. and learned Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) referred to the damage committed in Dublin in 1916, and to the decision of die Government of that day to pay the compensation for the damage done. There would have been more force in that contention if this was the only Vote that the House is going to be asked to pass. An examination of the Unclassified Services reveals the fact that the House of Commons during the next few months will be asked to pass large sums of money for Northern and Southern Ireland. I am anxious to find out what is the total sum the taxpayers of Great Britain will be forced to find for Irish services this year. We have this
afternoon, on Vote 7, £750,000. We have, on Vote 6, £2,000,000. The Chief Secretary, if I understand him correctly, said that Lord Shaw's Commission may investigate claims to the extent of £5,000,000. If I did not understand him correctly, perhaps he will give us information on the point. Will the claims that Lord Shaw's Commission will investigate in Southern Ireland amount to 210,000,000? We are entitled to some information on that point. I have heard it stated that the Exchequer of Great Britain may be forced to find over £10,000,000 for compensation to Southern Ireland. Surely the Chief Secretary must have some information on that point. He has told the Committee that in Northern Ireland claims to the extent of £4,600,000 were lodged before 14th January, 1922. Has he any information as to the amount of claims which will be lodged or have been lodged or are being prepared for compensation for damage in Southern Ireland? If he says he has no information, I will pass from the subject, but we are certainly entitled to some figure, although it may be only an approximate estimate.
Failing any figure from the Chief Secretary, I suggest that if we are to find £1,500,000 for Northern Ireland this year it will not be excessive if I place the figure at £5,000,000 for Southern Ireland, £2,500,000 to be payable this year. The House is asked on Vote 8 to vote £1,000,000 as a grant-in-aid to Northern Ireland. By question and answer a few hours ago, the Chief Secretary stated that he would shortly introduce a Supplementary Estimate for £500,000 to cope with the distress in Northern Ireland. Therefore, we have £2,500,000 compensation for injury, over £1,000,000 under Vote 8, and £500,000 for distress in Northern Ireland, and I estimate £2,500,000 for Southern Ireland this year, so that the amount that the taxpayers of Great. Britain will have to find this year in compensation for individuals in Northern and Southern Ireland, and to make good the damage done, will be about £6,750,000. I hope the Chief Secretary will realise the reasonableness of my suggestion that, in judging of this amount, the taxpayer of this country is entitled to know his total burden as the result of past policy. I have no intention and am not anxious to make any comment on that past policy, but we are entitled to know what the cost of that policy is to-day. I
suggest that it will cost at least £6,750,000 this year, and a further large sum next year, in addition to compensation to be paid to the Royal Irish Constabulary.
With respect to the present Vote for 2750,000, the Chief Secretary stated that the total claims amounted to £4,600,000, and that after examining these claims the amount was reduced to about £2,000,000, of which £1,500,000 is to be paid by the British Exchequer and £500,000 by the Government of Northern Ireland. For every pound that the Government of Northern Ireland are going to find on this Estimate the British Exchequer is going to find over £3. On what basis did the Chief Secretary come to that decision? Why three to one? Why not five to one? Why not pound for a pound? Why saddle the British taxpayer with such a heavy burden? During the coming months the situation in Northern Ireland is going to be very extraordinary. We have £750,000 on this Vote; we have over £1,000,000 on Vote 8 of British money which will pass into the coffers of the Government of Northern Ireland, and a further sum of £500,000 in a Supplementary Estimate. The Government are dipping too heavily into the pockets of the British taxpayers in this matter. Why such large sums I Maybe it is to solve temporary difficulties in Northern Ireland. If you are going to solve the present difficulties in Northern Ireland by a copious outpouring of British money, how much larger will be the sum which will be required in the coming months to be paid to the Government of Southern Ireland? This Vote is a forerunner of other large sums. Little by little we shall learn the true facts. By chance we learned an hour or so ago of a further Supplementary Estimate of £500,000. It is not an unreasonable request that the Government should tell the Committee the total cost of their policy in Ireland this year. If they will state the burden fully and frankly the Committee will be in a better position to judge whether this Vote should be passed without a Division, and we shall be able to justify the heavy expenditure to our constituents who may question us in the months to come.

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member has asked the Chief Secretary whether he will state the ultimate cost to the British taxpayer this year of the policy
which has been initiated by the Government. I am rather in sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman. I think he has been asked an impossible question. How on earth can he tell what Irishmen are going to do? We do not in the least know. It is not improbable that half the property in Ireland will be destroyed by Sinn Feiners, and then I presume that the Government will pay for it.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: indicated dissent.

Sir F. BANBURY: I think it is very likely. The hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) very wisely said that he was not going to question the policy of the Government. He was wise in that, because the policy of the Government was his policy, and it is his policy which has resulted in this enormous burden being put on the British taxpayer.

Sir G. COLLINS: The policy adopted two years ago.

Sir F. BANBURY: Therefore I am not at all surprised that the hon. Gentleman washes his hands of the question of policy. I am not certain as to what he meant when he said that for every pound given by Northern Ireland we were going to pay £3.

Sir G. COLLINS: The Chief Secretary stated that the loss would amount to £2,000,000, of which £1,500,000 must be forthcoming from the British Treasury, and I presume that the further £500,000 would come from Northern Ireland. [Hex. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman is not certain where the other £500,000 comes from. I am not disinclined to think that part of it will come out of my pocket. The hon. Gentleman ought to have thought of this before he voted for the disastrous policy which the right hon. Gentleman inaugurated some months ago. All this arises out of that disastrous policy. Now we have got to pay the bill, and I do not see how we are going to get out of it. I must not talk about legislation, I know, but I may say this, that unless we repeal various Acts which have been passed by the right hon. Gentleman and the Liberal party, we shall have to spend a great deal of money.

Mr. HAYWARD: The right hon. Baronet raises a very wide question when he refers to the responsibility for this Vote, and one would have to join issue with him at once upon this particular question, because this Vote does not arise from the new policy of the Government which was started some months ago, but is the result of the policy of the past two years which was supported by the right hon. Baronet. If he had listened to the Debate, he would know that this is compensation for damage which was done before the commencement of the new policy of the Government. But I rose merely to ask the Chief Secretary if he would elucidate a point which is not clear, and which at the same time I think rather important. As I understood the position with regard to Southern Ireland, it is that the damage is divided into two categories, damage occasioned by forces of the Crown and damage occasioned by others, and that the Government accept responsibility for damage caused by forces of the Crown, but will not pay for damage caused by others. In the case of Northern Ireland, the damage is not divided into similar categories, but a lump sum is being granted by way of a general settlement in satisfaction of all, as the right hon. Gentleman calls them, claims. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as a fact, any damage was occasioned by forces of the Crown in Northern Ireland?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Very little, if any.

Mr. HAYWARD: That means that whatever it was it would not by any means exhaust the £1,500,000 which is being granted. If that is so, it means that. Northern Ireland is being treated in an entirely different way from Southern Ireland. It means that claims are being paid for a class of damage in Northern Ireland which are being denied in Southern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said further that this was done in order to satisfy claims which might arise. I ask him with respect to those claims for damages occasioned by people other than forces of the Crown, what legal claim or obligation is there upon the British Government to pay any part of it The right hon. Gentleman has undoubtedly taken advice on this point, and,
therefore, I would be glad if he will tell us whether there is any legal obligation on the part of the Crown to meet those other claims or whether this payment is merely anex gratia payment made to the Government of Northern Ireland?

Mr. REID: I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me if I am correct in what I thought when this Debate began, though I wondered during its progress whether I was right or not. This money has been referred to by a number of Members as if it were a sort of compassionate grant which was being distributed to undeserving people. As I understand, there has been malicious injury caused, without going into the reason, in Northern Ireland. Claims have been brought under the Statutes in force before the proper tribunals. Those tribunals have made awards under the Statutes. Those awards are payable out of the resources of the local authorities who levy a rate. The result of this would be in many cases to bankrupt the local authority. This money is not being given to the Government of Northern Ireland in any ordinary sense of the word. It is simply a payment in relief of the claims made on the ratepayers. If that is so, it seems to me that a good many of the speeches made this afternoon are nothing more or less than an attempt to excite prejudice. The last two speakers spoke of Northern and Southern Ireland as if they were on the same footing. Nothing could be more different than their position.
The financial relations between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are governed by the Act of 1920. Under that Act taxes levied in Northern Ireland come into the British Exchequer. A certain proportion, to be ascertained by the Joint Exchequer Board, is paid over to the Government of Northern Ireland, The remainder forms a contribution by Northern Ireland to the finances of the United Kingdom. Not a penny will be paid out of the pockets of taxpayers of England and Scotland for any of these claims. What happens is that the contribution from Northern Ireland will be diminished to a certain extent. Under the provisions of the Act of 1920 the contribution was fixed for two years, but the Joint Exchequer Board has the right to go into the matter and see whether the contribution is a fair one, and it is possible, in the circumstances, that the Joint Exchequer Board would
allow all these grants as proper expenditure by the Government of Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is not correct to talk of this as if it were a case of rich countries like England and Scotland coming along and giving their money to their neighbour. You are simply allowing the people of Northern Ireland to keep a little more of their own money. The position in Southern Ireland is different. It pays no contribution to the funds of the United Kingdom. Any money which you give to Southern Ireland is money paid out of the pockets of the taxpayers of England and Scotland. The two positions are different. The position of the people of Northern Ireland with respect to these grants is plain and simple. They are still a partner in the United Kingdom, and money paid to them is only a part of what they contribute. The people of Southern Ireland have taken up the position of a foreign country which contributes nothing, and any money given to them is a dole out of British funds.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I had not the advantage of being present at the Debate, and I took no part in the division, last night, but I gather from the newspapers that the House was crowded, and that there was a great deal of excitement and a very important division with somewhat prejudicial consequences to the Government, and the result of the division created that feeling with which old Members of the House are familiar when the Government of the day are defeated, especially by a small majority. There was a question yesterday of taking away £2,500,000 from the teachers of this country, and on that very important question so determined were the House that justice should be done to the teachers that the House was crowded and there was much excitement. Here to-night we have to deal with a sum of money not very different in amount, and the Committee is listless and empty. Now I come to the contradictory position of my hon. Friends opposite. My hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken says that this is not money given to us. Then what is it if it is not? The fact that Northern Ireland contributes something to the Exchequer of this country does not alter the fact that this money is given to Northern Ireland to pay for damage which has to be paid by the ratepayers of Northern Ireland, and to say that this
is not a gift to Northern Ireland is one of these subtleties of argument which the ordinary man cannot follow.
Look at the equities of the case in reference to Northern and Southern Ireland. Southern Ireland is going to get a certain grant not for damages done by those who were supposed to be in sympathy with the members of the present Government in. Ireland, but for damage done by forces of the Crown. Will anybody contend that any civilised government, who employ the uncivilised methods which are now, I am glad to say, dispensed with, and which under thatrégime burned down one-third of one of the large cities of Ireland, was not bound to make good the money for damage created by its own policy and done by its own servants? That is a perfectly legitimate thing for a Government to do, and any other course would be unjust. Take the other damage in Ireland which has been very great, the damage done by what I will call for the moment the forces of Sinn Fein. What did the Government propose and what did the Irish Government accept? The Government proposed that as this damage was done by those supposed to be in sympathy with the Government and partly by the Government forces, that damage should be paid by the ratepayers and taxpayers of Southern Ireland. That is a perfectly logical and sane political arrangement. The English Government says, "What we have damaged we pay for," and the Irish Government says, "What our supporters have damaged we will pay for."

Sir F. BANBURY: They will not pay. That is the whole point.

Mr. O'CONNOR: That is in the laps of the Gods or whatever other providential agency is at present engaged with the interests of Ireland. The arrangement I have mentioned does credit to the generous and fair spirit with which the Provisional Government met the Imperial Government on this question of damages. If the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) were a member of the Provisional Government, I do not know that he would not have driven a much harder bargain with the British Government than did the Provisional Government. In passing, I must allude to the distinction which my hon. and gallant Friend the
Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel Ward) made. He is one of the most effective friends which the Government has. He says that these men in the North of Ireland were our loyal friends, and, therefore, we must pay for them, but that the men in the South were our enemies, and, therefore, they must pay for the damage themselves. That is a strange doctrine. It reminds me of a historic passage in the literature of the Orange party. They were preparing one of their habitual incursions from one of the blissful abodes of loyalty into an organised riot against a demonstration of their political opponents in the North of Ireland. They came with their sashes and drums and fifes, and they successfully broke up this meeting, which was engaged in the very legitimate purpose of demanding a reduction of the franchise, a reform which has since been carried out. A famous Orange writer described the position as "rioting in the name of loyalty "The fact that they were loyal gave them a right to break up by force a meeting of their political opponents, and that is the doctrine of the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke. If you are a Sinn Feiner and an enemy of England, if you burn houses, you ought to pay for the damages: but if you are a loyal friend of England—if the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke knew as much about the history of Ireland as I do, he would know that the worst and the most effective enemies of the reconciliation and the loyalty of Ireland to England are the British garrisons who confounded religious and race ascend-ancy—

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): The hon. Member is the Father of the House. I must appeal to his paternal conscience to inform him whether he is keeping strictly within the terms of the Vote or not.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I take it from your gentle reminder that I have wandered outside. So I apologise and immediately return to the subject. Still, within the Rule I can make the point that a more monstrous and absurd doctrine I never heard than that we have heard enunciated—that a man, because he is a loyalist, can burn down houses, threaten his political opponents and even kill them, but he is not to be asked to pay because he is a loyal friend of this country. That
is what the argument comes to. Take another point in illustration. I think the settlement is a settlement which will bear rigid examination. There is a Commission presided over by a distinguished and perfectly impartial judge in the person of Lord Shaw. That Commission has a right to deal with all these claims, and everyone knows it will deal with them impartially. I consider that a very great and necessary saving. There are other points as to the expulsion of workmen from the Belfast shipyards, into which subject I will not enter. What compensation are these men to get? It is no answer to say that they were of different political opinions from the majority of the other workmen there. They were condemned for weeks and months to walk the streets of Belfast hungry and idle, and if it had not been for the charity not of Belfast—is there an hon. Member opposite who gave a single subscription to the support of the expelled Catholic workers from the yard of Harland and Wolff? Was there any Vote suggested in the Parliament now functioning for the relief of these men? No. These men are alive to-day and their wives and children have not died of starvation because of the charity of the world and especially of America.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that that question would be in order on the next Vote.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Yes, I know that. What is the justification of this claim? I take it that the justification was stated by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Captain Craig). A murder was committed at Lisburn. I agree that a murder could not have been committed under more brutal or foul or provocative conditions. Everybody knows that I have no responsibility for the policy of violence on the one side or the other in Ireland. I dare say there is some remorse in the minds of those who, by neglecting the advice we gave them, and the constitutional method we adopted, have brought about the present state of things. But what is the defence? It is, that when this murder was committed the citizens of Lisburn "saw red." Is "seeing red" a safe excuse to give for rioting and burning? If it be safe in Ireland, is it also safe in England? If we adopt a doctrine of the hon. and gallant Member for South Antrim, in defence of the action of the
citizens of Lisburn, that because we "see red "we are entitled to burn down scores of houses and to impoverish and expel scores of people who happen to be of a different religion, I would remind him that there are 2,000,000 of men unemployed in England to-day. I hope they will not read anything about this doctrine. I would be sorry if, because they "saw red," they were to adopt the policy of Lisburn, which the hon. and gallant Member, their representative, has adopted today. In his speech he justified the claim to the Vote under this Estimate by stating that the murder was not committed, so far as his information went, by any of the people of Lisburn. Therefore, you have this extraordinary doctrine: that because some people come from a distance for the fell and diabolical purpose of committing assassination, the innocent people of the town, who may happen to be of the same religion and may share, to a certain extent, their political opinions, are to be looted and expelled and their property burned, and the miscreants who have been guilty of the lawlessness, because they "saw red," are to come and beg and obtain from the Government the payment of the damages which ought to have been paid by the ratepayers who did the damage. I come to another point as to the difference in the two methods of dealing with the matter. There is to be a Commission. Who are responsible for the distribution of this money in the Northern counties of Ireland?

Mr. SHARMAN-CRAWFORD: The judges, the Courts of Law.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Is it the legal Courts, as the hon. Member says?

Mr. SHARMAN-CRAWFORD: The money has already been allotted by the proper judicial Courts, as recognised in the North of Ireland and in this country. The various county councils and district councils have to meet the claims.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I will have a comment to make on that presently. Is all the money which is to be given by the county councils in accord with the awards already made by the judicial authorities? Is that the way the money is to be distributed?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I will answer that question in the course of my reply later.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I do not object to postponement of the answer, but it would facilitate me if I could get an answer at once.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I want to deal with a point raised by another hon. Member. It will be much more satisfactory to deal with the whole subject in my reply later, as the answer will be rather long.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I do not wish to interfere with the personal convenience of the Chief Secretary. You have a Commission in one place to guarantee the impartial distribution of this fund. I think you are doing a great wrong to future peace and good will, which is badly wanted between the warring creeds, if you teach them the lesson that they can burn down the house of their political opponents and that, instead of having to pay for the damage out of their own pockets, they can do it with impunity because they have the rich purse of England behind them to bear the burdens which are justly and honestly theirs. Again, we find an extraordinary phenomenon in the attitude which hon. Gentlemen opposite representing constituencies in the North of Ireland are able to take up in this House. They do not apologise, or they apologise rather weakly for all these dreadful occurrences in the part of the country in which they live. If it be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman that the distribution of this money is to be left in the hands of the Northern Government, I ask what hope or chance of justice have the followers of my hon. Friend the Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) from such a tribunal. There is a Government—now some months in existence—a Government which was to have been a model to all Ireland and even to all the world for law-abiding, and yet the streets of Belfast are wet with blood and that Government stands there and has not been able to prevent it. I do not suppose. the supporters of my hon. Friend the Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) will have the least faith in their distribution and adjustment of these claims, and for that reason, though I do not in the least object to my countrymen getting as much money as they can out of England under legitimate conditions, I will vote against this grant as equally unfair to the people of England and to the people of Ireland generally.

Dr. MURRAY: I wish to point out what seems to me a very curious contrast between the attitude which the Government take up as regards loss of property in Northern Ireland and the attitude which they have taken up regarding loss of property in other parts of these countries. A different policy seems to be adopted according to whether the people concerned are law-abiding or otherwise. Over a year ago there was a tremendous hurricane on the west coast of Scotland—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member might be in order in raising that on a Scottish Vote, but it is not in order on this Vote.

Dr. MURRAY: I think I am entitled to attack this Vote because the grant is not being made on the principle which has been applied to other parts of the country.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member may attack this Vote on the ground that it does not conform to the practice in other parts of the country, if he is able to justify that practice, which I gather, in this case, he is not.

Dr. MURRAY: As a British taxpayer, I am entitled to point out this fact. In this storm scores of houses were blown down and in one house four people were killed.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is clearly out of order in bringing up a Scottish matter on an Irish Vote.

Dr. MURRAY: This is a grievance on the part of the British taxpayer. I am pointing out that the Government is more anxious to deal generously with people who break the law than with the people who do not break the law.

Mr. DEVLIN: That is a commonplace.

Dr. MURRAY: It has already been pointed out that in the North of Ireland the Government are paying compensation to people who do away with each other's property, Catholics versus Protestants. I have both Catholics and Protestants in my constituency, and on the occasion to which I refer had they burned each other s houses they would probably have been able, with success, to claim compensation, but because the damage was done as the result of a hurricane, for which they had no responsibility, they got nothing.

The CHAIRMAN: I would again point out to the hon. Member that he is out of Order in attempting to bring this matter up on an Irish Vote.

Mr. DEVLIN: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member not entitled to draw a comparison between Scotland and the North of Ireland?

The CHAIRMAN: The proper occasion to raise this particular matter would be upon some Scottish Vote and not upon the present Vote.

Dr. MURRAY: I shall put it in this way. The payment which the Government proposes to make in the North of Ireland is a premium upon lawlessness. If that damage had been done in Ireland by storm—by the act of God—they would have got no compensation whatever.

Mr. R. McNEILL: May I ask the hon. Member if the storm he refers to was malicious?

Dr. MURRAY: It was directed by the Prince of the power of the air who is the source of all malice. I say this is a premium upon lawlessness and an encouragement to these men in the North of Ireland to burn each other's property and therefore I object to it. They ought to pay for their own fun. This is really a form of entertainment in which Irishmen indulge. We here are taxed if we go to an entertainment and we are now being asked to pay for this particular form of entertainment for Ireland as well. [HON. MEMBERS: "The North of Ireland!"] Certainly, the North of Ireland, but in any case, I object to the policy of paying for other people's fun, and I do not see why law-abiding people should be compelled to pay for this sort of thing which the Government of Northern Ireland ought to have been able to control.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I hope the Committee will allow me a few minutes to answer some points raised in the course of this interesting Debate. I informed the hon. Member for Falls Division that this grant of money to the Northern Government for malicious injuries included payments for injury to person as well as damage to property. The hon. Member seemed to have in his mind that it was restricted entirely to property. That is not so. In the case of Southern
Ireland, His Majesty's Government assumed responsibility for all damage done to property by their forces and the Provisional Government assumed responsibility for the acts of their supporters. The hon. Member for the Falls Division and several other hon. Members apparently do not quite clearly see why the two parts of Ireland are treated differently. It is because the fundamental circumstances are different. The representatives of Southern Ireland agreed to a Commission, and I think that is a sensible and proper way of dealing with these matters in Southern Ireland. A Commission was essential to examine the eases because they were not defended in a Court of Law. In the North of Ireland, where the legal and administrative machinery never broke down during the recent troubles, cases were contested in an open Court of Law, in which the defendant—usually the county council—could support the position of the ratepayers; therefore no Commission is necessary to decide what a person who got an award in these circumstances should ultimately receive. He has his legal claim against the local rating authority because of the fact that in Northern Ireland the legal machinery and the Courts of Justice never failed.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is this grant of £1,500,000 given to meet the claims of those who have suffered in connection with this war in Ulster? If so, what compensation is to be given to all those people who have suffered through being driven from their employment, and who should be as much entitled to compensation as people whose businesses were destroyed?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member and I are (healing with two different facts. This is a grant of £750,000 to assist the Northern Government, through the local authorities who represent the ratepayers, to meet the demands made upon the local authorities under the Criminal Injuries Acts passed by this House and administered by the Northern Government. Unless a man has an action at law under the Malicious Injuries Acts, he does not benefit by this £750,000. That is perfectly clear.

Mr. DEVLIN: He ought to.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: We cannot remedy all wrongs.

Mr. DEVLIN: If you give the money at all you should give it in the right way.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This deals with a specific class of sufferer.

Dr. MURRAY: That is what we object to.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This is for the class of men, women or orphans who, by reason of the recent troubles in Northern Ireland, have suffered malicious injuries and have got an award from the County Court. That award will be honoured by the local authority. This grant will assist the Northern Government, with whom alone we can deal, to relieve the local ratepayers of what would otherwise be such an oppressive burden that it would bankrupt almost every county in Northern Ireland. As to the question of the expelled workers, I am sorry that I cannot raise it on this Vote. It would be out of order to do so. The hon. Member for the Falls Division must know that an agreement was recently arrived at between the Chairman of the Provisional Government, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and His Majesty's Government, under which the Committee will be asked in the next Vote to give a grant of £500,000 to relieve, as far as they can be relieved, those expelled workers. It was also agreed among the parties that every effort should be made to bring back these expelled workers, not only to their work, but to their homes.

Captain BENN: Is that sum pro-vided for in the Estimates which have been laid or will another new Estimate be laid?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Estimates have already been laid.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly inform me whether or not some proportion of this grant with which we are dealing, is to be applied to those terrifically hard cases to which I have referred and about which I have read communications to the House?

The CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that this matter is dealt with in the next Vote.

Mr. DEVLIN: With all respect, Sir, it cannot be dealt with on the next Vote, for this reason, that the next Vote is for
the purpose of providing employment. My case is that a number of people have been damaged in person and in liberty and placed in a state of absolute desolation in which they cannot work and in which they apparently have no redress. I want to know if they are to receive anything out of the money now being voted by Parliament?

The CHAIRMAN: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary whether, in fact, on the next Vote it is proposed to allot part of the sum therein set down for this purpose?

7.0 P.M

Sir H. GREENWOOD: If the Chairman will permit me to read the actual terms of the Agreement, I will make clear what it is proposed to do in the next Vote. This is only for information. I quite agree that it is out of order. In the next Vote we are asking the Committee to give us £500,000 for the Ministry of Labour for Northern Ireland, to be expended principally on relief works; one-third for the benefit of Roman Catholics and two-thirds for the benefit of Protestants. As the hon. Member for the Falls Division knows, that is roughly the correct proportion. The Northern Ministry will use every effort to secure the return to their homes of persons who have been expelled
the advice of the Committee mentioned in Article 5 to be sought in cases of difficulty; and in view of the special conditions consequent on the political situation in Belfast and neighbourhood, the British Government will submit to Parliament a Vote riot exceeding £500,000 for the Ministry of Labour of Northern Ireland, to he expended exclusively on relief work, one-third for the benefit of Roman Catholics and two-thirds for the benefit of Protestants. The Northern signatories agree to use every effort to secure the restoration of the expelled workers, and wherever this proves impracticable at the moment owing to trade depression, they will he afforded employment on the relief works referred to in this Article, so far as the one-third limit will; allow Protestant ex- service men to be given first preference in respect of the two-thirds of the said fund.
Therefore, a proportion of £500,000 is specifically applicable to the expelled workers referred to, and I think the matter ought to be raised on the next Vote. With reference to the point taken by the hon. Member for the Falls Division,
about one unhappy victim finding himself too late to apply to the Court for redress, I would say that he ought to change his lawyer. Under the Act passed by this House in 1920 a man can apply to the Court if he has had good reason for delay, such as prolonged illness, inadequate means, or absence from this country, and the Court will hear his case.

Lord R. CECIL: The Court is not bound to do that.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is not bound to do so, but it is within the discretion of the Court. As the Noble Lord has raised the point, I will read the Section of the Act of 1920. It says:
The powers of the Court.…shall include power to extend or vary the time prescribed by any Statute.
It is within the power of the Court to do that, and I have never known a case where such power has not been exercised.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will those cases which have occurred since the Act was passed be heard by the Court?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Certainly, every Court has its own discretion. The cases will be subject to the discretion of the Court. I should be glad if the hon. Member would send me the hard cases he speaks of.

Mr. DEVLIN: I did send them, but I have received no answer.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: You have got no answer yet. It is under consideration. The matter is a very serious one, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will acquit me of any reluctance to deal with it.

Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman has always been very courteous and prompt in reply. I have sent on several cases during the last six months, and they are under consideration. For instance, a poor man going out to his work at 6.30 in the morning was shot dead. The coroner's jury, which was made up of men of absolutely different religions, strongly recommended the Government to compensate his wife and children, but they have never done so.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: If it is a question of the Northern Government, I cannot interfere. The hon. Member must make up his mind that Home Rule carries with it certain disadvantages. The hon.
Gentleman cannot come to this Committee with an isolated case of a kind which should be dealt with by the Northern Government.

Mr. DEVLIN: We want something out of this money.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I hope I have replied, to some extent, at any rate, to the question of the expelled workers raised by the right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson), which can only be fully dealt with on the next Vote.

Mr. ADAMSON: If I understood the terms on which this sum of £500,000, as dealt with in the next Vote, can be expended, it can only be applied to providing work. What are you going to do by way of compensation to trade unions who have given out-of-work pay to those men who have been expelled from their work in Northern Ireland?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That point cannot arise on the present Vote. Nothing in this Vote can possibly affect the case referred to by the right lion. Gentleman. I know of no Vote that is going to compensate trade unions for paying out-of-work pay to their members who were unhappily driven from their work in Belfast by their fellow-workers, also trade unionists, because of differences of religion. No Government can assume such a responsibility.

Mr. ADAMSON: Then that means that certain sections of the people in Northern Ireland are not to be treated in the same manner as are other sections by the provision of this money by Parliament?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Oh no, not at all.

Mr. ADAMSON: Yes.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Any section of the people in Northern Ireland can, under the law, go into the courts and make a claim under the Criminal Injuries Act, and if successful they will be entitl3d to compensation from this Vote. This money, however, is not for the purpose of recouping trade unions which have paid out-of-work expenses due to the conflict that arose in July, 1920, principally in Belfast. That was a conflict among workmen, very often members of the same trade union. The Government and the employers did their best to stop it, but
it was impossible. At any rate, the matter does not come up under this Vote, or, indeed, any other that I know of. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has been frank in putting his question, and I should be very interested to hear him suggest a Vote of public money to recoup trade unions for out-of-work pay which they have expended upon their own members as the result of a conflict amongst them.

The CHAIRMAN: I think it is quite clear that this cannot be dealt with on this Vote. I do not see how it would be in order.

Mr. ADAMSON: May I put this point? The Chief Secretary says he would like to see me put forward a claim. Evidently he cannot understand a claim of the kind to which I have already referred being put forward on behalf of that section of the people of Northern Ireland. If these men's property were destroyed, and their work taken from them, and if they had to be recouped by their particular trade union, why should I not put forward a claim for them, or for anyone else, when other people are being compensated out of money voted by this Parliament?

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has proved to me that I ought to have stopped the Chief Secretary sooner.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am trying to speak strictly within the limits of Order, and I am sorry if I have violated the Rule. I did my best to restore these men to their work.

Captain BENN: On a point of Order. May I draw your attention, Sir, to the term of the Vote, which says that this money which we are asked to vote to the Northern Government is in respect of compensation for damages to life and property arising out of the disturbed conditions in Ireland? The right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) has drawn attention to such a case, and I submit that any argument in support of that case is in order under the terms of the Vote.

The CHAIR MAN: The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) is mistaken. This is a Grant-in-Aid to the Government of Northern Ireland in respect of compensation for damages arising out of the disturbed condition of
Ireland. That is, compensation for damages awarded by the courts, which would otherwise be chargeable on the ratepayers of Northern Ireland.

Captain BENN: Is that in the Vote?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes. "Compensation for damages" COVOTS compensation for damages by the courts.

Sir D. MACLEAN: This matter is quite important, and it is quite certain that the honoured occupant of the Chair will give full and ample opportunity for discussing a point of Order. The point I wish to put is this. How can it arise that the word "compensation," to which you, Sir, have just directed attention, can only arise out of compensation which can come from judgments delivered by the Courts? How can anybody in this House say that the Courts will not take cognisance of such a claim as that which has been put before the Committee by the right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson)? How can the Chief Secretary say so? It may be that these Courts will take these matters into their cognisance. I do not know anybody in the Committee authorised to say that they will not. Therefore, with much submission, I would suggest that this is a matter which is in order for discussion on this Vote.

The CHAIRMAN: The law of compensation for damage in Northern Ireland is known. It is to recoup the authorities in Ireland for such compensation as they awarded under that law, and it cannot have reference to any other kind of compensation but that which arises under the existing law of compensation. Any case which the Court may have judged upon, of course would be a matter under which part of this grant could he awarded, but not otherwise.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The main fact is that anybody who has a claim under the Criminal Injuries Acts can bring that claim to a County Court, and if he gets an award, he is entitled to his share in this money which I am asking the Committee to grant. The hon. and gallant Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward) advanced an argument with regard to Southern Ireland. I will only deal with it from the point of comparison, as he erred in his statement of the case. The Provisional Government of
Ireland are quite prepared to pay for the damage to property done by their supporters in Ireland. Such damage, therefore, will not be paid for by the British Government. The hon. Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman) asked if any conditions were attached to an award by a County Court judge under the Criminal Injuries Acts in Northern Ireland. It is possible, I admit, for such a judge, subject to appeal, to attach certain qualifications. I cannot go into a long legal lecture on this matter, but the law is well established throughout the whole of Ireland as to what those qualifications and conditions are.
The hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) raised a very important point, which I am going to do my best to answer. He wants to know what is the total damage or cost to this country of the financial settling up of the whole of Ireland. I agree with him that the cost is large. Most of it, I believe, is provided for in the Budget, and subject to the point made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) in regard to the future, which no man can clearly read in Ireland, the cost can be approximately given. The money I am asking the Committee to vote now is £750,000 this year, and there will be £750,000 next year. The next Vote on the Paper to-day amounts to £1,500,000, which is the Grant-in-Aid for certain purposes in Northern Ireland which cannot be discussed now. Then, there is the Estimate of £2,000,000 already on the Paper to compensate all Crown supporters who have suffered personal injury in Ireland. That amounts to nearly £5,000,000 in all. The claims in respect of damage to property lodged in Southern Ireland approximate to some £11,000,000. If we follow the precedents in these matters, we, the taxpayers of the British Isles, shall, I hopefully anticipate, have the expenses reduced by 50 per cent., because in Ireland, as elsewhere, people who make claims for damages before county or other courts generally put their claim at a.figure above that which the judge may consider fair. This amounts to a great total of something like £10,000,000 or £11,000,000. Whether that means that this is the last claim that will be made upon this House in respect of Ireland it is impossible fur me or anyone else to say with certainty.

Sir F. BANBURY: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say there was a Vote of £750,000 now, one of a similar sum coming on next year, and other Votes making £5,000,000. He then dealt with Southern Ireland and mentioned a sum of £10,000,000. Does that mean that the whole of Ireland will receive £15,000,000?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I said there are Estimates before the House amounting to £5,000,000, subject to this £750,000 payable next year, and that claims lodged in Southern Ireland approximate to £11,000,000. I have said I hope these are exaggerated by 50 per cent., but the price of trying to make peace in Ireland will cost the House at least £5,000,000 this year apart from the subsequent further expense in respect of the property claims that amount to £11,000,000 in all, part of which will be payable by us and part by the Irish Government.

Sir G. COLLINS: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that there are £10,000,000 this year and £10,000,000 next year.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No. I am sorry I did not make myself clear, but this is an important matter, and the Committee has every reason to be critical of this continuous expenditure in Ireland. I quite agree for myself, and the Government feels that it is its duty to limit this expenditure as far as it possibly can, but after all we have certain obligations, legal and moral, and no one can say what the future demands on this House may be if, for instance, thousands of innocent people who look to this country for support and help should unhappily be driven out of that country. Such contingencies as that are not provided for, but subject to those contingencies, which no man can foresee, there are already on the Paper Estimates for £5,000,000 for this year, subject to the fact that £750,000 are payable next year. Then, as to the claims for malicious injuries to property in Southern Ireland, they approximate to £11,000,000, but how much of that will be payable this year, and how much by His Majesty's Government, and how much by the Provisional Government, I cannot say.

Colonel NEWMAN: Are those claims against the Provisional Government and against our Government, or only against our Government?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: They are not against our Government at all, but against the local authorities under the Criminal Injuries Act. They are all subject to revision by Lord Shaw's Commission, except a few defended cases. How much of this sum will be due and payable this year I cannot say, but the total British indebtedness, spread over this year and possibly the next two years, I hope will not amount to more than 50 per cent. of the claims made against us. The right hon. Member for Greenock wanted to know how the money is expended in Northern Ireland. A county court makes an award to an applicant, who claims to have been maliciously injured in person or property. That award of the Court is a legal claim against the local rating authority, and in Northern Ireland the person who gets the award can go into the nearest bank and get an advance on it, because it is a first-class claim and good security as against the local authority.

Mr. DEVLIN: Spread over five years.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The local authority can levy a rate spread over a period of five years to meet their claims.

Mr. DEVLIN: But the person who gets compensation must remain out of his money for five years.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No; the rating authority spreads the rate over five years, but the person who gets the award has a legal claim against the authorities. As these awards were contested in the North, the Government came to the conclusion—I submit rightly—that it would be better to make this block grant. to the Northern Government in complete and absolute discharge of any liability, alleged or otherwise, that the Northern Government may have against the Imperial Government for these malicious damages arising out of the conflict in Ireland. That was considered the best way, and I am asking the Committee to approve that agreement and to make this grant in discharge of any liability that may be upon the Imperial Government for damages in Northern Ireland. When the Northern Government get this money, I have no doubt they will do their best with the local authorities and with the holders of awards to come to some agreement. Such holders, in the meantime, have a complete legal claim against the local
authority. I think the arrangement is fair, and I think the amount is a reasonable amount to ask this House to bear. There is no discrimination in the matter as between Homan Catholics and Protestants.

Mr. DEVLIN: There is.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That cannot be so, when the Courts are open and the awards are granted by judges who have been chosen in the past quite independently of their religion or politics.

Mr. DEVLIN: You have appointed a Commission in the South to consider all these cases; why not appoint one in the North?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: What is the use, when the Courts in the North have worked continuously and the local authorities have paid regularly? This is not for the relief of the Courts, but for the relief of the ratepayers, and as we have relieved the ratepayers in the South, so we think we ought to relieve them in the North.

Mr. DEVLIN: You are revising the awards in the South.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The awards in the South were never defended, and that is the whole point. My submission is that this Estimate of £750,000 is reasonable in fact and fair to all parties, and it certainly does not discriminate against persons of different religion or politics.

Mr. ADAMSON: It discriminates against trade unions.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No, it does not discriminate against trade unions, and I think it is most unfair of the right hon. Gentleman to say that.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £250,000, be granted for the said Service, "put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £1,000.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £749,000, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 78; Noes, 240.

Division No. 107.]
AYES.
[7.25 P.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis 0.
Gillis, William
O'Connor, Thomas P.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Or. Christopher
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Rattan, Peter Wilson


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Banton, George
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hallas, Eldred
Robertson, John


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Halls, Walter
Royce, William Stapleton.


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Hayward, Evan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Spencer, George A.


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Irving, Dan
Spoor, B. G.


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sutton, John Edward


Cairns, John
Johnstone, Joseph
Swan, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Kennedy, Thomas
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenyon, Barnet
Waterson, A. E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lawson, John James
Watts-Morgan, Lieut. Col. D.


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Lunn, William
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wignall, James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Devlin, Joseph
Mosley, Oswald
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. w. (Stourbridge)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth. Bedwellty)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Myers, Thomas



Finney, Samuel
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Galbraith, Samuel
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Mr. Hogge and Mr. T. Griffiths.




NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Edge, Captain Sir William
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Hopkins, John W. W.


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Evans, Ernest
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Howard, Major S. G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Falie, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Fell, Sir Arthur
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Fildes, Henry
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Barker, Major Robert H.
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Hurd, Percy A.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.


Barnston, Major Harry
Foreman, Sir Henry
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Forestler-Walker, L.
Jodrell, Neville Paul


Bigland, Alfred
Forrest, Walter
Jones. G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Birchall, J. Dearman
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)


Blair, Sir Reginald
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Keliaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Kidd, James


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith
Gange, E. Stanley
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Breese, Major Charles E.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gardiner, James
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Briggs, Harold
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Lindsay, William Arthur


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Gilbert, James Daniel
Lloyd, George Butler


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tlngd'n)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Lort-Williams, J.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Gould, James C.
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel w. R.
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray


Carr, W. Theodore
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Casey, T. W.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachle)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
McMicking, Major Gilbert


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gregory, Holman
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W).
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James 1.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Gretton, Colonel John
Macqulsten, F. A.


Clough, Sir Robert
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Magnus, Sir Philip


Cobb, Sir Cyrll
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hallwood, Augustine
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Martin, A. E.


Cope, Major William
Hancock, John George
Mason, Robert


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Matthews, David


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.


Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
Haslam, Lewis
Middlebrook, Sir William


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hayes, Hugh (Down, W.)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Davies, David (Montgomery)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Morrison, Hugh


Davies. Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Neal, Arthur


Dawson, Sir Philip
Hinds, John
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)




Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wallace, J.


Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Walton, J. (York. W. R., Don Valley)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Seager, Sir William
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Pain, Brig-Gen. Sir W. Hacket
Seddon, J. A.
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Pearce, Sir William
Sharman-Crawford, Robert G.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castte-on-T.)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Perring, William George
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Stanton, Charles Butt
Wilson, Field-Marshal Sir Henry


Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Stewart, Gershom
Windsor, Viscount


Pratt, John William
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Wise, Frederick


Purchase, H. G.
Sturrock, J. Lena
Wolmer, Viscount


Raeburn, Sir William H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Randies, Sir John Scurrah
Sugden, W. H.
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill (High Peak)


Reid, D. D.
Surtees, Brigadier-Genera H. C.
Worsfold, T. Cato


Remer, J. R.
Sutherland, Sir William
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Taylor, J.
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hertford)
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Rodger, A. K.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)



Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell (Maryhill)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Tickler, Thomas George
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Townley, Maximilian G
McCurdy.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRANT-IN-AID.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,500,000 (including a Supplementary sum of £500,000), be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Revenues of the Government of Northern Ireland.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This is a Vote which can be divided in two parts. One million pounds is to be paid to the Exchequer of Northern Ireland as a contribution towards the abnormal expense of Northern Ireland arising out of the present exceptional circumstances, and £500,000 is a Vote that is particularly relevant to the question of the expelled workers from the shipyards of Belfast. I will take the 1,000,000 first. Everybody must be fully aware of the exceptional state of things in Northern Ireland. These exceptional circumstances have thrown upon the Northern Government exceptional expenses, and His Majesty's Government hopefully expects the Committee to support it in this grant, to enable the Northern Government to deal with the present circumstances. May I remind the Committee that Parliament asked the people of Northern Ireland to work the Act of 1920, not because the people of Northern Ireland asked for the Act, or wanted it, but in order to carry out the Government policy of trying to make peace in Ireland, as we hoped by that Act? Therefore, the House of Com-
mons has the responsibility of supporting the Government in Northern Ireland which was brought into existence, not at the request of the people of Northern Ireland, but because Parliament asked them to work the 1920 Act in the six counties. The Northern Government has had very great difficulty from the time of its inception, but especially during the past few months of this year. It has been compelled to take very drastic measures against the few—I think a very few—persons in the Northern area, who seemed determined by the aid of pistol, rifle, bomb and machine-gun to make, not only the Northern Government, but any Government impossible in that area.
In their endeavour to deal with this situation, the Northern Government has spent an exceptionally large amount in defence of its citizens, by increasing its police force and in other ways, and this £1,000,000 is the grant of the Imperial Government to endeavour to help its own creation, namely, the Northern Government, to carry on during these difficult times. I cannot imagine any great criticism of this grant. Parliament itself set up the Northern Government, and I think in justice must support it, especially during these critical times. In normal times, I cannot imagine any grant being asked by the Northern Government. It is a question whether or not the Northern Government, when the balance is struck, as it will be struck by the Joint Exchequer Board, pays more to the Imperial Exchequer than it receives from the Imperial Exchequer, even when these
grants are included. At any rate, the Northern area is a part of our Parliamentary system. They bear all our burdens, and share all our troubles, and I take the view, myself, that we are just as much bound to support them in the endeavour to bring peace to their own area, as we would be bound to try to bring peace to the county of Kent were it afflicted with the same troubles that now afflict Northern Ireland.
As to the £500,000, I dealt with that in the recent Debate. I shall deal with it again just for a moment. This grant of £500,000 was the result of an agreement entered into at the Colonial Office on the 30th March last, the contracting parties being the representatives of the Irish Provisional Government, the representatives of the Government of Northern Ireland, and the representatives of the British Government. Part of that agreement was the payment of £500,000—which is included in this Estimate, and which, I hope, will appeal to the sympathy of every Member of the Committee—to be spent on relief works exclusively—onethird for the benefit of Roman Catholics and two-thirds for the benefit of Protestants, that being, roughly, the proportion between these religious denominations in Belfast. The Northern signatories agreed to make every effort to give work to expelled workers, and, wherever possible, they will be afforded employment on the relief works and so on. This is really an effort to try to heal the great rift in the population of Belfast, brought about by the most unhappy and unfortunate circumstances, and counter-circumstances, of July, 1920, and subsequent months. I hope the Committee will give me this Vote to enable the Northern Government to carry on its beneficent work of trying to bring peace to the Northern area.

Mr. DEVLIN: I think it would have been preferable if the right hon. Gentleman had left the question of peace out of consideration altogether, because how he can associate the policy of peace with the establishment of an Ulster Parliament under the Act of 1920, I fail to see. From the very beginning, we warned the right hon. Gentleman that the establishment of that Parliament would be a barrier to peace in Ireland, and particularly in Ulster, but we have followed the Parliamentary dictum of the late Prime Minister. We waited to see, and we have
waited and we have seen, and although this Parliament has been in existence for 12 months, and the Government has had full authority for nearly nine months, and although they have received every support and assistance from the Government of this country whenever financial support was called for, yet, I venture to say, that never in the whole history of that community was the condition of the community worse than it is now. If you are going to pay for anything, you should see that you get value for it. You have not got value for this money, and you are not likely to get any value for it, because the whole system of establishing a police force with one section of the community, the personnel of which is largely made up of the most combatant of the political parties during the last seven years, is, in my judgment, a barrier to peace.
What is the condition of things there to-day? There have been more murders within the last three months in the area of North-East Ulster than in all the rest of Ireland put together. We constantly hear criticism of the Provisional Government. We know the tremendous difficulties the Provisional Government have had, but the North of Ireland, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) said earlier this evening, was to be held up as a model for all Ireland. We were told from those benches that the Parliament was given to Ulster in order that the rest of Ireland might see how splendidly Ulster could teach a lesson, and the good order, peace and prosperity which would be the future outcome of statesmanship. But look what we have. Bomb-throwing, murders, religious passion, hatreds, economic and industrial troubles, and, I venture to say, there never was a worse investment made, not by the British Government alone, but by those hon. Gentlemen opposite who speak for North-East Ulster, than when they established that Parliament. Therefore I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not talk about peace or say that by giving this sum of money he is creating peace. On the contrary, let me tell him this, that if he withdrew these contributions towards the maintenance of the Special Constabulary in Ulster altogether there would be a larger possibility of peace in Ulster. It is very strange that in the course of his speech he never once mentioned what this £1,000,000 was for-
never! Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me now, while I am on my feet, so that I may be able to discuss the £1,000,000?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I spent the greater part of my speech, as I thought, in trying to tell the Committee what the £1,000,000 was for.

Mr. DEVLIN: If you did, then all have to say is that I would ask those members of the Committee who know what it is about to stand up. [HON. MEMBERS: "That would not be in order."] It would not?

Viscount WOLMER: It would not be in order for us to stand up while you are standing up.

Mr. DEVLIN: Then I will sit down to enable others to speak, for I am always in favour of giving precedence to hereditary institutions. The right hon. Gentleman has told us certain things. I can only attribute it to his contempt for our Parliamentary intelligence. I admit it is not a very high intelligence, but still that contempt ought not to be so manifest as it is. I want to know what this £1,000,000 is for? He has told us that it is to be devoted for some purpose in North-East Ulster. I am a Member for North-East Ulster in this Parliament, and a Member for North-East Ulster in the other Parliament, but I am left in profound ignorance of what this £1,000,000 is to be devoted to. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee, because I may possibly make a speech upon it! Before, however, I proceed to discuss this with all the profound seriousness which it demands in this age, and in the whole atmosphere of Parliament when the nation is filled with the desire of economy, I want to know what this £1,000,000 is for? If it is for the Special Constabulary I am opposed to it absolutely. I think this Special Constabulary are a danger to peace and good order in Ulster. They are political partisans, and public money ought not to be given to maintain them.
We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman about the tremendously drastic measures which have been taken by this Parliament which was to be a symbol of peace. He has told us that they have taken drastic meaures to deal with those who break the law of the land. The drastic measures in the Northern
Parliament are very like the drastic measures which the right hon. Gentleman, during his régime, got the House to pass for the rest of Ireland. What effect have they had? Where was the consideration for the minority? Where was the desire to give them equality, protection for their lives? If you did not still wreck their churches and burn their buildings, and hunt their people, and infuriate them with the spirit of resentment against the undeserved wrongs inflicted upon them, then you would not require drastic measures. It is the old story, the old vicious circle, round and round again. You think that by drastic legislation you can do that which alone can be done by kindness, consideration, generosity, and conciliation. That is what it means. What did the Northern Parliament do? They passed a law by which anyone in Ulster found in possession of weapons—revolvers, rifles or ammunition—could be sentenced to death. It has not had the least effect upon the people.

Mr. HALLS: It has only made them get more.

Mr. DEVLIN: The Governments ought to have learnt by this time that coercion does not pay. It did not pay in the rest, of Ireland, and it will not pay in Ulster. You have not got a single advantage from your drastic legislation, and it is not impartially administered. You go into a Catholic house and search for rifles and revolvers and you do not get them. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes!"] In two or three cases there have been prosecutions, but the men have got off. I know one particular case a man was found with any amount of rifles, revolvers and ammunition, but he never was brought to justice. By some subtle process of association between the powers that be—

Mr. LINDSAY: Will the hon. Gentleman give the name?

Mr. DEVLIN: I will tell you all about it by and by. I will give the hon. Member a litany of cases and ho can go home and sleep on them and come back in a week a wiser man. Therefore it is absurd and grotesque to talk about your drastic legislation, and so on. I come now to the second part of the Resolution, namely, that referring to the £500,000 which has been granted to meet the, difficulties that were considered by a Joint Committee
from Northern and Southern Ireland with the Colonial Secretary. I am not going to say anything about that arrangement because it is an arrangement mutually agreed to between the parties. Once again we had a magnificent triumph of the acuteness and skill of hon. Members opposite. This unemployment and the condition of these expelled workers was a deep-rooted, unclosed wound in the body politic of Belfast as naturally happens when about 5,000 men are hunted from their employment without cause. I understand the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) said they were expelled because they were Sinn Feiners. Of course that is not true at all. Even if they were Sinn Feiners that was no reason why they should be expelled from their employment. I know they were not Sinn Feiners at all. One would have thought that hunting Catholics from their employment in Belfast was a somewhat abnormal and unprecedented incident in the life of that city; but it has been going on for the last 50 years. There has not been a single time of political intensity in this country or in Ireland when Catholics have not been hunted from the shipyards of Belfast, even if they were Sinn Feiners. That is no reason why they should be hunted. If their leaders can come into counsel with the members of the present Government and be received in Downing Street, and co-operate for the purposes mutually advantageous, then surely, if the right hon. Gentlemen the Prime Minister and the Colonial Secretary can meet Mr. Griffith and Mr. Collins, why cannot Mr. Collins and Mr. Griffith's followers be allowed to stand before the furnaces and burn their faces in laborious tasks in the great shipbuilding yards of Ulster? How an hon. Member of the personal, political, and intellectual power of the hon. Member for Canterbury can come forward with a canting argument and humbug of that kind I cannot understand! I must express my profound admiration for the hon. Gentleman opposite. What happened? They said: "We must heal this wound, and therefore let us come to an agreement to get £500,000 from the British Government." What was that £500,000 for? It was not for the purpose of compensating the people who raised the £500,000 to keep these people out of Belfast workhouses during the time they were out of work. They said: "We are giving
£150,000 to employ the Catholic workers, and we will grab the £350,000 for our own purposes." It is the most amazing and grotesque thing I ever heard of in my life. Why should they have given to them £350,000? They have suffered no wrong! They were not denied employment; they had it. But since this is an agreement as the result of the Conference I do not oppose it. I say nothing against it. I accept it. But we ought to be perfectly honest with each other. So long as this Parliament and this Government continue not only to set up Parliaments, but to subsidise them, and enable them to carry on policies that do not make for peace but for tragedies, all I have to say is: If the right hon. Gentleman simply comes here and says, "I want to give the Ulster Parliament £1,500,000," let them have it; but please do not let us hear anything more about peace!

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member who has just sat down referred to the outrages which have been going on in Northern Ireland, but he should remember that it is no longer the English Government who are ruling that country, but their own authorities. Then we have these calls upon the British taxpayer. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants more or whether he wants anything at all?

Mr. DEVLIN: I am in favour of carrying out the agreement that has been made, but I am not in favour of giving £1,000,000 to the Royal Irish Constabulary.

8.0 P. M.

Sir F. BANBURY: I quite sympathise with Northern Ireland, but I want to know where we come in. Where does the British taxpayer come in? It does not seem to me that he is getting any advantage from this Vote. He is not getting peace, but he has to put his hand in his pocket all the same. We have not got peace, and we have got to pay for not having peace. I think we ought to have some further explanation as to what the position of the English taxpayer is going to be. I admit that the right hon. Gentleman cannot tell us what the total amount is likely to be, for I know that that is something which he cannot do. At any rate, he can say whether it is the policy of his Department, if it is found that it is necessary
to compensate either Northern or Southern Ireland, to say, "We have had enough of this. We are going to stop these outrages and stop these things from occurring." We are entitled to know whether the Government have any policy on the Irish Question, or whether they are simply going on from hand to mouth hoping that something will turn up to relieve the ghastly mess into which they have got us.

Mr. SEXTON: I understand from a statement made by the Chief Secretary that this £500,000 is to be devoted to providing relief works for the men boycotted in Belfast who have been driven from their work. On this question I have the honour of representing a considerable number of workmen in Belfast who are politically and religiously divided. I do not wish to say anything that would in any way add to the bitterness of religious and political differences in Belfast. I would, however, like to ask, on what basis of calculation does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that two-thirds of the £500,000 should be given to Protestant workers of Belfast and only one-third to the Catholic? I wish to speak not of the religious or political differences, but simply about the equity and fairness of this division of the money. My recollection, which I think is shared by all my colleagues on these benches, is that the injustice in regard to unemployment in Belfast was suffered by the Catholics and not so much by the Protestants. I want to know where the money is going to.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that British trade unions, through their members in Belfast, have contributed thousands of pounds to the men who have been driven out of work on account of the political and religious differences in Belfast? I understand that in regard to the division of this money there has been a local arrangement, but I would like to point out that hundreds of thousands of pounds have been paid by trade union members in Ireland in order to relieve the position. I want to know if this has been taken into consideration in apportioning this £500,000. Having contributed so largely to relieve distress in Belfast, I think the least thing the right hon. Gentleman could have done would have been to call in the industrial repre-
sentatives in order to ascertain their opinion as to how this money should be distributed.
I cannot understand why this question has been settled locally in Belfast without some reference to the trade unionists, including my own union, which has had to contribute out-of-work pay in consequence of these religious differences in Belfast. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will now see that this Vote, having direct application to the men out-of-work, is a case where the workmen's representatives ought to be consulted in regard to the apportionment of the money. Of course, we all regret these unfortunate religious differences in Belfast, but I do say that we are justified in demanding that the representatives of organised workmen in Ireland, who have contributed so enormously to relieve distress, ought to be consulted in the distribution of this miserable apportionment. How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the fact that only one-third of the £500,000 is being given to the people who suffered, and two-thirds to the people who suffered very little indeed? Surely there is some answer to that question.

Mr. REID: I should like to point out that this Vote is one for a sum agreed upon by the representatives of Northern and Southern Ireland representing every section of the community. The money is very badly wanted, and it is important that these relief works should be started as soon as possible, and if we do not get this Vote now it means that the relief works will be delayed for a considerable time. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken will feel, I am sure, that any delay in this matter will be very detrimental. As a Member representing the North of Ireland, and as this is an agreed thing between the different parties, I appeal to the Committee to allow the right Eon. Gentleman to have the Vote now.

Mr. HOGGE: I think it is rather a tall order to ask for so large a sum of money, even though it has been agreed to by Northern and Southern Ireland, without the House having some information as to who is going to spend it and how it is going to be spent. This is a Vote for half a million of money, and I presume that was the Government's estimate of the amount required to cover a certain period of unemployment. The
Chief Secretary has not told the Committee how many unemployed there are to be dealt with.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: There is not time.

Mr. HOGGE: It is the duty of the Government to provide time, and if the Government think we are going to vote £500,000 without debating it simply because there is not time, then they are mistaken, and the fault lies with the Government. I want the right hon. Gentleman to answer one or two questions. Has he got any actual figures with regard to unemployment in Belfast? How many unemployed are there in Belfast?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot say, off-hand.

Mr. HOGGE: The right hon. Gentleman cannot tell us and yet he is asking us to vote £500,000. Does he not think that that is unreasonable? If the Government wish us to vote this money for unemployed in Belfast it ought to be voted only on the basis of actual ascertained facts. I should like to know what is the number of unemployed in Belfast? I might be faced with the question as to whether £500,000 is enough. I will assume, for a moment, that 5,000 men are unemployed in Belfast. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin), can say how many unemployed men, apart from women and girls, there are in Belfast. Assuming the number is 5,000, and that you will pay the same rate as is paid to the unemployed workers in this country, may we be told how long this £500,000 is going to last? Has the right hon. Gentleman any estimate of that, and can he assure the Committee that he is not likely to come down to the House in a short space of time and ask for another grant of money for the unemployed?
This House will never refuse to grant money which is absolutely necessary, whether it is to effect peace in Ireland or deal with the unemployed, but we ought to refuse to pass a Vote in regard to which the Minister in charge cannot make out a case. I think my right hon. Friend did himself an enormous injustice. He is usually able to give the Committee a clear and concise account of the position of things, but to-night the right hon.
Gentleman entirely slurred over the figures, and the £1,000,000 Vote was not explained. This House will never vote £1,000,000 without knowing how it is going to be spent—

It being a quarter past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

Orders of the Day — NAVY AND ARMY PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.

Mr. BANTON: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, are inadequate in meeting the case of the Navy and Army pensioner, who has been unable to save during the period of his employment by the State, and who, after long periods of service in all parts of the British Empire, has been thrown on the labour market unskilled, and often broken down in health and unfit to work; and further that, in the opinion of this House, the Government should take immediate steps to apply the Jerram scheme to all naval pensioners on the rolls, as recommended by Article 51 of the Jerram Report, and Army Order No. 325/19, to all men of the Army pensioned from the Army prior to 4th August, 1914.
It may seem very strange that 1, a civilian, and not a military man, should be bringing forward a Motion of this kind. I am doing it because I know there are a great number in this House who agree that there is a large body of men in this country who have served the country to the best of their ability and who, at the present time, are not being rewarded in the manner one would desire. Be they military men or other men, I will always raise my voice in their favour. I hold that this House more than any other Assembly ought to see that justice is done to men who, for a number of years, have served their country faithfully and well and in such a way that they deserve far better treatment than is actually meted out to them. The condition of these old men is a reflection on our sense of honour, gratitude and justice. Injustice may be wrought by ignorance, but ignorance may be removed by knowledge, and I hope, at the conclusion of this Debate, no Member of this House will be in the position of not knowing what is the condition of these men and who are responsible for it. With
regard to honour, it is the highest sense of justice that the human mind can frame, and so in the name of justice and honour we claim that these men are entitled to the consideration of this House. On these grounds I venture to bring this Motion before the House.
In the early days of these old veterans, the legislation of trade unionism greatly changed the status of the workmen in civilian life, but the service men who were called to serve their country were neglected. Their very loyalty and discipline were exploited by the State. Their condition remained unchanged in spite of the great change that was taking place amongst their own relatives and those with whom they had worked in former days. The King's shilling remained the same. It always remained at that one shilling, and discipline demanded that these men should in no form combine to raise their status. It was not theirs to reason why, not theirs to make reply, theirs was to do and die and the State neglected their just claim. We are now living in an age of inquiry and unrest. That spirit crept into the minds of the pensioners. A dangerous position crept in. The Government became nervous, comparisons were being made between the treatment meted out to them and their pay and the pay and treatment of other people, an agitation was set on foot in which to their credit the officers joined, and it was claimed on behalf of the men who had served loyally and well on the battlefield that they should be better rewarded. The result of the agitation was the appointment of a special Committee in January, 1919, presided over by Admiral Sir Marten Jerram, and the Committee was appointed to consider and report on the pay, allowances and pensions of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. The Committee went very fully into the matter and reported to this House. Army pensions were also reported on in a similar way, and Clause 51 of the Report laid it down:
The revised scales of pensions to apply to all pensioners now on the rolls, in consideration of the increased cost of living and the higher standard of comfort normally aimed at.
An Army Committee also sat to consider Army pensions. Most of the recommendations of the Committee were
adopted by the Government, the Admiralty and the War Office. On this Clause 51 the Government laid it down that
The revised scales will apply as from the 1st April, 1919, to all future pensioners, all pensioners now serving and all who have served during the War, including those serving in a civilian capacity under the Government, who although under 55 years of age and therefore liable to serve during hostilities were retained in their civilian employment. The revised scales will not apply to other pensioners.
It is these other pensioners for whom I am speaking. Is is not a strange irony that the Government, realising the value of men in the crisis of our country, should forget the services of other men who had served so loyally in past years? As I have said, the recommendations of this Committee were accepted in the main, and we are pleading to-day for the men who were exempted from the operation of those recommendations. Lord Lee of Fareham has described these men as the most loyal, law-abiding, and anti-revolutionary of any section of the community—the very salt of the earth. Yet they have been left in this position. They have not had an opportunity of mixing with their fellow men in the industrial world. They have not been allowed to organise and they were often called upon to fight against those who have sent us on these benches to Parliament. Many a time during past days they were called upon to subdue an apparent riot or possible disorder, and now we are called upon to fight their battle. Who and what are these men? They were young men of good character in the main, of good physique and stamina. They were the pick of the nation's manhood drawn into a blind alley employment, after long service which, as a rule, unfitted them for industrial life, having obtained civilian employment they were always on a lower rate of wage than other men in the labour market. Even the Government itself, when it did employ men of this type as messengers, etc., paid them at the rate of 18s. to 21s. per week, while other men, drawn from civilian life, doing similar work, were paid at the rate of £100 to £150 per year. This discrimination, again, is a disgrace to any Government which adopts such measures. The services rendered by these men took them into foreign and often unhealthy climates.
They contracted malaria and other diseases, making them in many cases prematurely aged; and now numbers of young men, physically strong, disbanded from the Army, are displacing these old men in the labour market. There is no room for them, and they are rapidly drifting—as all Members of this House must be aware, because they have been appealed to, undoubtedly, by these men many times—they are drifting into the workhouses. There are very few workhouses in our land in which you will not find some of these old veterans, who have fought the battles of their country, fighting their battles over again, but with a sense of bitterness that the country for which they fought has so scantily rewarded them, their pensions being inadequate to keep them alive.
I have been more than once appealed to to write to the Chelsea Hospital Commissioners to obtain assistance for these men. I have in mind in particular one old chap who appealed for my sympathy and assistance. I wrote, and they very generously offered him a home in Chelsea Hospital; but the old man said, "I was not born yesterday. If I go there I shall be among strangers, I shall be buried among strangers, and no friends will visit me. I will go to the workhouse instead. There, any way, I can be visited by my friends, and I can occasionally visit them." But think of the disgrace. Idealist and anti-militarist as I am, I feel that it is a disgrace, and I have to carry the burden of that disgrace myself. The scale that has been drawn up, as I have mentioned, is not on the extravagant side. No one can accuse the Jerram Committee of wasting the resources of their country in a riotous manner. I have here a comparative statement of the maximum pre-War rates of pay and pension for the lower grades of the Navy, Army, Police and Civil Service. The ordinary seaman, in pre-War days, on non-continuous service, received in pay 7s. 7d. per week, with no pension, because non-continuous service meant that he enlisted for the period of a ship's commission. The ordinary seaman on continuous service, serving 10 or 12 years, received the magnificent sum of 8s. 9d. per week, out of which he had to provide himself with uniform and other clothing, including boots—and they were often besought when going on shore to be careful how
they spent their money. The continuous service man who had served the number of years I have mentioned received the magnificent sum of 5s. 10d. per week as pension upon which to maintain himself, and, frequently, to maintain his wife and children. The private in the Army had the magnificent sum of 9s. 4d. per week, and his pension would amount to 7s. 7d.
Let us compare this with the civil servant. The postman would be receiving 34s. 3d. per week. I am not complaining for one moment of the amount granted to the postman in comparison; I am only using these figures in order to distinguish between the treatment meted out to the man who fights your battles and the man who serves you in a civil capacity. The postman would receive 34s. 3d. per week, retiring upon two-thirds of his wage, that is to say, 23s. 6d. The police constable would receive 33s., retiring upon 22s. In these cases uniform was provided, and, in the case of the policeman, house allowance also. The retort may be that these men in the Civil Service had to provide their own homes and maintain those homes. Well and good. The seaman and the soldier were provided with lodging, clothing and food. But, on retiring, the soldier or the seaman had to provide his own home, and he had to maintain his dependents. Why should there be this differentiation between the two services who have served the country in their respective capacities? The pay of a non-continuous service able-bodied seaman was raised to 1s. per day in 1797. In 1904 it was 1s. 4d. per day. There was an increase in 117 years of 4d. per day, and we still survived. In the case of the naval pensioners, their handsome pension was based upon ½d. a day for each completed year of service, with a maximum of tenpence—for fear that he might, perhaps, become a capitalist, and compete against others in the State. To this a further 4d. might be added where the man was in possession of three good conduct badges and a good conduct medal, and had an uninterrupted series of very good awards for character throughout his Service career. There were very good men in the Service, undoubtedly, but we find that very few of them lived long enough to receive this magnificent sum. There is a theory afloat that the very good die young, so that very few of these men are dependent upon the State at the present time.

Mr. TILLETT: Thank God we are not good!

Mr. BANTON: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, speaking in the House of Commons on the 21st February last, with regard to Civil Service pensions, stated that for a postman to be r tired on 20s. a week would be a disgrace to the nation, and we agreed. But many Navy and Army pensioners have pensions of 7s. to 10s. 6d. per week, and this includes the 50 per cent. increase under the Act of 1920. Comparisons, they say, are odious. I have another note here which is very interesting, showing the services rendered by these men and the different parts of the world in which they have served. It is interesting to note what they have done for their country. There are men living to-day, with this princely income, who served as far back as 1854—who served in the Crimea.. There are men who served in the Indian Mutiny, in China, New Zealand, and Japan. Coming to the period which I can recollect, there are men who fought in the Abyssinian War at Magdala, in the Ashanti War at Coomassie, in the Zulu War, in Burma, Egypt, Benin, in the Sudan at Omdurman and Khartoum, in South Africa, and in Somaliland. These are only a few, but they will give you an idea what services they have rendered. But there is another thought that comes into my mind of the extent of territory that these men did the rough-and-tumble work to acquire and add to our Empire. I am not very great on that theme. There are differences of opinion as to the value of an Empire, but, this House, in the main, believes in a large Empire. You believe there are many great. advantages to be derived from having this Empire, and we have paid dearly for it, but it was only invested with the idea of having good returns. You are proud of the men who conceived the idea of a large Empire. You see their marble busts, you read of them in history books, and their names will be handed down to posterity. They have been honoured. But the men who did the rough-and-tumble work and the dangerous work are living in the workhouse and are in a condition of penury.
I make a plea to those who believe in this large Empire, who believe that it should provide us with the raw material that is necessary to carry on our great
manufactures, that we may still retain that proud position of being the commercial centre of the world. Without those lands providing raw materials we should be helpless. I make the plea to them that they should give support a little more generously to pay those men who underwent all those dangers and privations to acquire that land for us. There are those who believe in the great mineral resources that we have taken control of, and for which we spent much blood and treasure. Remember also the markets for our goods. There are hon. Members in this House who realise the value of those markets; and would still more extend them. You believe in your theory. Believing, in it then, reward the men who have founded the Empire for you. Millionaires can now be counted in great numbers who have profited by this Empire, and we appeal to them. There is an Amendment on the Paper which alludes to the present financial stress and burden. The same story was told when these recommendations were first brought forward. It was then inopportune, although money could be found and spent riotously by the thousand millions. The time never is opportune. I have lived long enough to know that when the plea goes forward for the workers in the Army, or the Navy, or in the industrial world, the opportune time never arrives. So I make the plea to our sense of decency that gratitude be extended on behalf of these men. Make amends for the many years they have been neglected and bring comfort, if comfort can be brought, in their old age to these men, many of whom are now suffering the racks and pains of disease which they have contracted, that their last days may be spent amongst their friends and their children. So we make the plea, knowing full well the difficult financial position the Government is in. It will not be a great burden, and it will not last for many years. Year by year these men are a diminishing number, and in 10 years it will have disappeared entirely. The burden will not be placed upon your shoulders for ever. Give these men the same terms you gave to the men who served in your late War, the Jernam Report, and that is all they ask for.

Major-General Sir J. DAVIDSON: I beg to second the Motion. I will not go into a detailed recapitulation of the his-
tory of what has been done for these men. A number of letters have been sent to various Ministers pressing their case and replies have been received turning it down. A number of deputations have been received with no result. The Jerram Committee definitely recommended that an increased scale of pensions should be applicable to all pensioners. The Treasury turned it down. The matter was further raised at the beginning of 1920 when the police pensions question was brought up in the House, and the Government was defeated, with the result that, after all this agitation, a Bill was brought in and the Pensions Increase Act. was passed, which gave a maximum of 50 per cent. increase to existing pre-War pensions, with certain income limitations—in the case of married men £200 a year and unmarried men £150 a year. I propose, in the first instance, to confine my remarks to the case of the pre-War pensioners of the Army and Navy only. All these men are over 00 years of age. Take the case of the Navy. Any man of 55 or less was called up in 1914 and therefore participated in the new rate of pensions. Therefore, if he was over 55, it follows that now he will be over 63. Many of these men are drawing pensions, after a period of service of 21 or 22 years or more, of round about 10s. to 11s. a week. These men have served many years abroad, and the natural result of long service in a tropical and unhealthy climate is that the majority of them are infirm and are quite unable to do any sort of manual work at all. They are really unemployable. In addition to that, these old men are men of good character, for if they were not they would not have been allowed to extend and prolong their service. In addition, the majority of them are men who have served in one or more campaigns, fighting their country's battles in various parts of the world. During the best time of their lives, that is, from the age of 20 to 40, they have been completely out of touch with the labour market.
With the pensions they are given at present they are on the verge of starvation, or on the verge of going into the workhouse. It is quite obvious that they have been unable to save. Their pay has been incredibly small. I should like those hon. Members who have no experience of service in the Army or the Navy to realise
what these men got and what they paid out of their own pockets. They got in the neighbourhood of a shilling, perhaps a little more, and out of that they had to pay extra messing to supplement their meagre rations. In addition to that they had to pay for extra clothing out of the 1s., and, further, their last meal in the day was at four o'clock in the afternoon, when they got tea and a lump of bread. They had to pay for their own suppers out of their own pockets. What was left of the Is. wherewith to save? Nothing at all. Saving was quite out of the question. I want to emphasise a fact that was brought out by my hon. Friend who has moved the Resolution, that the pay of these men was raised in 1797, when there was trouble at Spithcad. Pay has always been raised in the Army and the Navy either owing to trouble or in consequence of war. During the whole of the 117 years that followed 1797 their pay was only raised 4d. a day, while the pay of the ordinary civilian in private life was practically doubled. I should like to point out what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty on this matter. He said
The increases granted were a very tardy recognition of obligations that should have been met long before the outbreak of War.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in speaking of the pension of a postman, said:
The full pension on which he could retire at 60, after 40 years' service, including pension on bonus, was £1 18s. Had it not been for the scheme of pension on bonus, such a postman would have been retired with 20s. a. week, which would have been a disgrace.
I hope the House will mark those words, for I shall have cause to refer to them again. It may be said that there is very little to be said for these old pensioners, because when they contracted to serve they knew what they were in for in the way of pension. I ask the House whether the contract of an employé in civil life, in view of the increased cost of living, has been adhered to, and whether the employé has been held down to his previous contract. Of course he has not. His pay has been increased, and if it has not been increased, he has entered into negotiations, or gone on strike, to secure increase of pay. How could these Army and Navy pensioners take similar action? Not only could they not do it, but they had no intention and no wish to do
it. It must be admitted on all sides that these men have used a lawful form of pressure to get what is due to them, and to get justice, and that the State has not done its honourable duty by them.
What we are asking for to-night is that the Jerram recommendations should be carried out so far as the Army and Navy pre-War pensioners are concerned. So far as I can estimate the cost, it will be somewhere about £500,000 for the current financial year, disappearing in 10 years. These pensioners do not want this to be retrospective. They do not want to go back to the year 1919. Therefore, the State has economised at the expense of these old soldiers and sailors by at least £1,500,000. When I am asked whether the £500,000 is a correct figure I can only say what the War Office and the Admiralty have said in reply to questions. The War Office said:
It is not possible to answer this question accurately without making a special investigation, but on the information available, and making some allowance for a corresponding saving in old age pensions, the cost for Army pensioners in 1922–23 would be between £300,000 and £400,000.
If we make allowance for the Pensions (Increase) Act, we can take the cost at a lower figure. The Admiralty replied:
The net additional expense during 1922–23 would be about £180,000.
Therefore I calculate that the total cost would be something under £500,000 for the first year.
I wish to anticipate certain objections which will be raised by the Government in regard to this Resolution. The first of these is the question of economy. I am not going to deal at length with this point. Everybody realises the necessity for economy, and I am thoroughly seized of that point, but I do not think it is honourable, either on the part of the country or of the Government, or of this House, that economy should be effected at the expense of these old soldiers and sailors. It may be argued that we have taken no notice of the officers. We are most anxious to assist the officers. We fully recognise the difficult position in which they are placed, but we do not want to compromise our action in regard to the more needy portion, the rank and file, by including the officers, and I believe the officers, if they knew that they were going to compromise the position
of the rank and file, would be the first to ask to be kept out. The third point is that there are pre-War pensioners of the Army who avoided military service in the Great War. They were of an age when they might have been of value from the military point of view, but they preferred to go into munition factories and to get large emoluments. We have no case for those men, and we are perfectly prepared for the Government to eliminate them.
Then there is a last and most vital objection, and that is, that if we raise the pre-War pensions of the Army and Navy men we shall be involved in the question of having to raise the pre-War pensions of the police and civil servants. The position of these classes is not on all fours with the position of the Army and the Navy pre-War pensioners. A private in the Army had pay of 9s. 4d. and a pension of 7s. 7d. a week, while the constable got pay of 33s. and a pension of 22s. for approximately the same length of service. The Army and Navy rates were less than one-third of the other rates. Notwithstanding this, one Minister says that the pay ought to have been raised long ago, and another Minister says that a pension of £1 a week for a postman is a disgrace. What about these old soldiers and sailors who have served their country in every part of the world? Does he say that their pension of 10s. or 11s. a week is a disgrace? It is doubly a disgrace, and this is the first class of pension that ought to have been rectified. I do not understand where any justice or equity can come into this case at. all. If it is argued, "We gave the Pensions Increase Act," my reply is that that, in a sense, has made things worse. You get an Army pre-War pensioner with a pension of 7s. a week and you give him a 50 per cent. increase to 10s. 6d. You give a constable with a pre-War pension of 20s. a week a 50 per cent. increase and you bring his pay up to 33s. That increases the disparity between the two rather than lessens it.
The whole question of State pay and pensions is in a fog, a mud lie. There is no relation to principle or justice in it. It was merely patchwork before the War, and legislation since the War has rendered it infinitely worse. Why is the British Empire in existence to-day? It is because of these old men, yet one would think from the Government's
action that it was in spite of them. I believe that the vast majority of the people of this country are in favour of these old men getting a better pension in their old age. I have been in communication with that powerful body, the British Legion, who thoroughly support this Motion, and I shall be glad to read two letters which I have received from the President of the British Legion.
The President, Field-Marshal Lord Haig, writes:
I understand that the position of pre-War pensioners is to be brought before the House of Commons for consideration on 17th May. I trust that you and your colleagues will be successful in your endeavour to improve the financial condition of these old soldiers and sailors. I realise that some improvement was secured by the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act, but this is not sufficient. In my opinion it is the duty of the country to see that our old soldiers and sailors are not reduced to a difficult and hard existence below the poverty line after serving their country for many years abroad and in one or more campaigns. It is only equitable and fair that their pensions should be raised to the same level as that in force for other pensioners, and their case is the more urgent, seeing they are for the most part unemployable owing to their age and infirmity. You state that the cost for the current year would be less than £500,000 and that this cost will diminish annually, and disappear in 10 years' time. I am impressed, as indeed everyone must be, by the urgent necessity for economy, but I do not consider it right or fair that economy should he obtained at the expense of these old warriors who have fought for their country but are unable to fight for themselves.
I have also a short letter from the Chairman of the British Legion, Mr. T. M. Lister:
My dear Sir,—I am pleased to hear that in consequence of your activity the position of pre-War pensioners of the Army and Navy is being raised in the House of Commons on the 17th inst. As you know, the unjust way in which old pre-War pensioners have been treated has created a lot of feeling, and as Chairman of the Legion ' I would like to express appreciation of your action, and T trust that your efforts to apply the Jerram scheme to all naval pensioners will meet with success. It is of course very necessary at the present time that strict economy should he practised in public affairs, but when a ease of injustice is presented like the case of pre-War pensioners I am sure that it is the desire of the country to act in a reasonable and fair manner.
I do appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Government not to bang and bolt the doors on these men. I do appeal to them to give some hope
of doing something now and not later on. If they do something later on many of them will not be alive to enjoy it. The average age of these men is over 60 years and probably nearer 70 years. Personally, I consider it a dishonourable thing —I use the word advisedly—for this country and for this House to allow these men, who fought their country's battles in various parts of the world, and served long periods abroad, to exist on the poverty line or to be forced into the workhouse.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
while recognising the sacrifices required from pre-War pensioners of the Navy and Army, among others, by the rise in the cost of living that accompanied the War, this House, in view of the serious state of national finance, of the heavy burdens of the taxpayer, and of the fall in the cost of living that has taken place since the Pensions (Increase) Act of 1920, is not at the moment prepared to reopen the settlement made by that Act.
9.0 P.M.
I recognise that it is an ungracious function which I am called on to perform this evening, because the House will have listened with the greatest sympathy to the case made so admirably by the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution. I recognise fully the humanity and good feeling which have characterised the speeches of both hon. Members. The first criticism which I will make on the Resolution has already occurred to the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson), and must occur to most people who look at this question dispassionately in the light of the circumstances in which we are living. That is, that the pre-War pensioner of the Army and Navy is not an isolated class. He is not alone among the great mass of pensioners in the country. The House knows very well that if the concession asked for by this Resolution were adopted, similar concessions would be asked for by all the other classes of State pensioners in the country. It would not be human nature if they did not ask for similar concessions.
We have heard in Debate on more than one occasion the excellent case which can be made out for old age pensioners, and it has been pointed out how hard it is for men and women who have been thrifty
in early life to be debarred from receiving old age pensions. Their case is just as strong in its way as the case of the pre-War soldier or sailor. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The case would become even stronger if the concession asked by this Resolution were granted by this House. Then take the case of ex-teachers. I do not know whether hon. Members are familiar with the extremely hard lot in which teachers who happen to have retired before the Act of 1918, those who are called in the teaching profession the Old Guard, are placed. The condition of many of these retired teachers is most miserable. They live on mere pittances. They worked hard at a most exacting profession all their lives, and now they find themselves in the same straits as the pre-War Army and Navy pensioner.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: What is their pension?

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: It varies according to their pay. There is no hard and fast pension, but I have come across cases where the amounts were 10s., 12s. 6d., or 15s. a week. The amounts vary according to the districts in which the teachers worked and the stipends which they were receiving at the date of their retirement. I do not want to go into the question in detail, but a great many of the retired teachers live in great penury. They have been agitating for many years for an increase in their pensions, and it is only human nature that if any considerable increase is given to Army and Navy pensioners these retired teachers will—

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not a fact that the minimum for retired teachers is £40 per annum?

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: No, that is not so. The class of pensioners for whom this appeal is made is one of many classes of pensioners, all of whom have suffered from the diminished purchasing value of money, but each class regards its own case as the most poignant. Therefore, if this concession were granted it would stimulate a greatly increased demand on the part of other pensioners. [HON. MEMBERS "Why not?"] Another point. Not only is this class of pensioners not an isolated one among the general mass of pensioners, but it is not isolated from a great mass of people who are not
pensioners at all. I remember that a short time ago, when the question of the Post Office pensions was raised, and it was pointed out how small those pensions were, I was struck by the reply, in the form of a great many letters to local newspapers, by people who had worked hard all their lives in civil occupations, and found themselves with no pension at all in their old age. It is true that they may have had an opportunity of earning more during their working days, and that their savings may have brought them in £1 or 30s. or £2 a week. The purchasing power of their savings has however been reduced just as has the purchasing power of pensions. There is an enormous number of persons who have worked hard and are now without pensions or any savings whatever. In fact, the number of aged poor and of elderly poor in this country is so enormous that, if this Resolution were carried, it would mean the selecting of one small section out of the great mass of the poor, and adding to their maintenance at the cost of the rest of the population, many of whom are just as near the poverty line as those for whom this benefit is asked.
Since the Jerram Report and the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, two things have happened. First, the purchasing value of money has increased, and, secondly, the well-being of the rest of the population, among whom the pensioners are living, has obviously and materially diminished. There is no doubt that these soldiers and sailors who live among the poor are to-day in surroundings where the ordinary family is considerably worse off than it was in 1919–1920. In order to raise the money which is required to meet the cost of these pensions, or of any other pensions, we can do one of two things. We have either to borrow it, for which I suppose no one will speak, or we have to raise it by taxation. At present the vital need of our country is to reduce taxation. The Government to-day is making a great experiment by reducing Income Tax and the Tea Duty. All classes ought to be a little better off by reason of that reduction of taxation. If pensions be increased it will mean that you make one section of the poor a little better off and all other sections of the poor a little worse off. This question has been spoken of somewhat lightly by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, but it is the biggest question
of our time and it ought to dominate our decisions of every public issue.
It is not merely a question of what a family has to pay, either in direct or indirect taxation, on its tea, or amusements, or beer, or tobacco. On this question of economy depends the whole chance of trade revival in this country. At present you cannot go through any of the great towns in the industrial North without being staggered by the amount of unemployment and distress. In my own district there is street after street where people are living in poverty, miserably housed and out of work, or at the best under-employed, and their only chance of economic revival depends upon a revival of our export trade. We know very well that the only way in which that trade can be revived is by diminishing the cost of production, and that the only way in which we can help to lessen the cost of production is by reducing taxation. We, therefore, ought to be adamant, however hard and unpopular that course may be, towards every proposal which, though it may involve popularity in a certain quarter, yet has the far greater disadvantage at the same time of increasing taxation and thereby making trade revival more difficult. Revision of this class of pension is, of course, most desirable, as is revision of all classes of pensions. Every man must feel how very hard is the lot of these old men, and how desirable it is, if possible, to better the conditions of life for them. But we have to realise that we cannot do this at present without at the same time inflicting hardship on the rest of the community. We have to take a long view; we have to realise that A is no good talking about economy and then boggling at economies. We cannot get the economy we write about and talk about on the platform unless we are prepared to stand by economies in practice, however unpopular it may be to grasp the nettle when questions come to a division. In moving this Amendment I realise that I am doing, and that I am asking the House to do, what must be unpopular but, taking the long view, it is the right thing to do, and we ought to follow the right course, however difficult it may be to pursue it to its logical end.

Dr. WORSFOLD: I beg to second the Amendment. This is certainly a very difficult Amendment to move, because I
know at the outset that it is opposed to emotion, which very often overmasters calm, considered judgment. Let me say how deeply I deprecate the appeal, for these men as myrmidons of millionaires which seemed to be the chief basis for his exhortations, of the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Banton). That is a point with which I am profoundly at issue. Wherever the flag has flown over the Empire, upheld by our soldiers and sailors, it has stood in the breeze for justice to all. I want the House earnestly to clear its mind of excessive sentiment, and to consider briefly the circumstances which led to these pensions at the outset. In the first place these men, worthy and good veterans of the Empire, joined the Army with their eyes open. They took up the business as a profession. They did not go, as in the last War, to the detriment of their business or the ruin of their households. They went with their eyes open, and they went gladly. Therefore, we cannot put them in the same category as those who claimed our attention in the late War. I ask the House to remember that at present we are paying something like £90,000,000 a year in pensions to those who fought and suffered and very often lost their all in the great call of the nation in 1914. It is important that the point should be differentiated, and very sharply too, for we should remember what we are doing for those who had wrested from them everything that made life worth living in civilian existence.
Let us come to what took place in 1920 when the Pensions (Increase) Act passed. That was only passed after careful consideration of the ways and means by which the position should be met. The period that has elapsed since is not a very long one, and we should see how that Measure will act before we rush in with the principle of raising these pensions because others have had their pensions raised. I want the House also to bear this in mind, and I say it, not without due deliberation and speaking from personal knowledge, that in very many instances—I make so bold as to say in the majority of instances—old soldiers are not in the parlous state that those who support the Motion would have us believe. They came out of the Army, all to their credit, hall-marked as steady, honest, straightforward and reliable men, and in many cases the old soldier has had a good berth given him because of his services in the
past, and is retained in that berth. I can mention one man who is 72 years of age, and who holds a position of trust. He is only one of very many. I am not going to say that all are in that state of happiness and contentment. No class in this world ever was, but it must be borne in mind that when these men came out of the Army, after long service, they got a preference. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Those with whom I am acquainted got a preference. Take, for example, the commissionaires. They are recognised as good, straightforward' men, who can be relied upon and trusted with untold gold. We must remember that those who volunteered came out after their service with, as I say, the hall-mark of trustworthiness and honesty, which was a considerable asset to them, in civilian life.
There is one other point, a point of finance, on which I will merely touch. Let us remember that if there is this increase it is bound almost inevitably to come out of the pockets of those who have fixed incomes, and if those who have fixed incomes are further taxed, their activities on behalf of many charitable institutions will, in turn, become absolutely limited and crippled. In fact, it is a vicious circle in sociology. It sounds very splendid that the old soldiers should be remembered in the sunset of life. I think in most cases this is so for they are honoured and respected, and wherever there is an opportunity they are made much of, as is their due. I ask the House, much as hon. Members may be swept by an emotion, for which I confess I have a great feeling of receptivity, to let us be just before we are generous.

Mr. G. BARNES: The only argument I see against this Motion is that it will cost money. It will cost, I am told, about half a million, or perhaps a little more, in the first year, and it will run out in ten years. Therefore, it will cost £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 altogether. That, as I say, seems the only argument against the Motion and, up to last night, I should have regarded that argument as a strong one. It may be said, as was said by the Mover of the Amendment and by the hon. Member who has just sat down, that we ought to have in our minds the serious state of national finance and the heavy burden on the taxpayer. I agree with that. Speaking generally, this is not a
time for expansion, but rather a time for retrenchment, in public expenditure. There is no doubt high taxes are, at this moment, an almost crushing burden upon industry and contribute to some extent to the number of unemployed. When the Geddes proposals first came into this House, I said that if the Government took their courage in both hands and proposed the adoption of those recommendations, holus bolus, I should have been inclined to vote with them, so impressed have I been with the serious state of public expenditure and its effect upon industry. I say that, notwithstanding the fact that there are one or two things in the recommendations, such as the abolition of the Afforestation Department and certain of the education proposals, with which I do not agree. So impressed was I, however, with the need for lessening taxation that I would have voted for the whole lot. Those considerations were swept away last night. What happened last night? What did the hon. Member who has just sat down vote for last night? His name appears in the Division List in favour of giving a body of men this year—not in ten years—a sum of £2,300,000.

Dr. WORSFOLD: Since the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to ask me my reasons—

Mr. BARNES: I did not do so.

Dr. WORSFOLD: —or has imputed to me the doing of something which I have not done, I think I am in order in pointing out that what I voted for last night was the appointment of a Committee of inquiry.

Mr. BARNES: The net result conveyed to the mind of the average man inside and outside the House is that we had two Division Lobbies last night, one of which voted with the Government and the other of which voted for giving a body of men, this year, £2,300,000.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: A body of well-off men.

Mr. BARNES: Leaving aside technicalities, that is what the hon. Member voted for, and he voted that money to a body of public servants who are relatively, to put it very mildly, very well off as compared with the men we are considering to-night. Last night we had under consideration a proposition to give
this sum of money to a body of public servants who during the whole of their lives are assured of wages, and at the end of their working lives are assured of pensions at the public expense. This is a body of men and women who are not only assured of wages but are now, at all events, whatever their position before the War, assured of good wages. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has said, in effect, by his vote, that he is not only in favour of giving them three times as much wages as before the War, but a handsome pension at the end of their working lives. I do not care what his reasons are; I simply state the bare facts. On the other hand, what have we now in the way of men to plead for in this Motion? The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment told us, supposing we passed this Motion, that there might be demands from other people by and by. I never saw or heard of him voting for any generous proposal for anybody in this House. If my memory serves me right, when we were pleading for the aged veterans of industry a few months ago, he moved a Motion against that, or, if he did not move a Motion, he voted against the proposal. In fact, he is always to be found there or thereabouts. He said we should have demands made by other people, and he instanced the men in the workshops who had been getting wages which seemed to him to be so high—£2 per week. These men for whom we are now pleading went into the Army in the formative period of their lives, very often not because they deliberately chose that profession, as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has said, but because they were out of work and poor. We have taken advantage of the poverty of these men, we. have built up our Army and Navy from the ranks of the unemployed and the poor. It is a mean thing, and I say it deliberately, for an hon. and gallant Gentleman who has served with these men to come here and cut them out of the advantages they would get from this Motion.
What is their pension? I am almost ashamed of it. These men have served in all sorts of climates and have suffered in health as a consequence. They have built up this Empire for us. I am proud of the Empire and of what they have done for us, and I rather dissociate myself from the Mover of the Motion in this respect. It is more and more im-
portant for us that we should develop our territory which has been won for us by these men. That is cur only chance of getting employment for the great mass of our working people, many of whom are now walking about the streets. These are the men who have built up this territory for us and have given us the opportunity of obtaining employment therefrom for the working people of this country, which is ever getting more important owing to the fact that those countries for whom we used to produce are now producing for themselves and are not obtaining their goods from us.

Mr. BANTON: I do not remember decrying the Empire nor speaking against it I only appealed to those who firmly believe in it.

Mr. BARNES: I am sure the hon. Member will believe me when I say that I have no desire to misrepresent him. If I have imputed to him anything contarary to what he said, I apologise. These men were entiled to our special consideration because they are drawn from a class of the community that is comparatively helpless. Because of that they were miserably paid in their service and then cast out on the market at a time when they ought to have had some special training for industry. They had not got that training, and therefore were at a disadvantage compared with others. The Government are pretty much in the same position in regard to these men as they are in regard to the school teachers. It was pleaded last night that the teachers had a moral claim through a bargain made some years ago. I do not know whether that is so or not, and I am expressing no opinion upon it. The Government, however, are under a moral obligation to pay these men better than they are doing now because of their bargain. What is that bargain? Some years ago these men, as a result of long service, were getting about 1s. a day; in fact, very often I do not think they got 1s. a day, unless they had served for a very long period and if they had wounds. I know, because I had occasion to inquire into these cases when I went to the Ministry of Pensions, that if a man, even with wounds, had 1s. a day it was thought that he was being very well dealt with. When these pensions were fixed by the Government many years ago 1s. a day was sufficient to buy cer-
tain services and commodities. It was worth so much, expressed in commodities. Do not we all know that 1s. then might be expressed in about 2s. or half-a-crown now? Therefore, if the Government are to keep faith with these men in terms of the commodities which their meagre pensions might then have acquired for them, their pensions now ought to be double what they were at that time.
In addition to the other reasons I have given, and on merits, these men have a claim to have their pensions assessed in terms of money now, so that they can get as many commodities as they would have had for 1s. long years ago. We have a special obligation towards them. They served us faithfully and well in years gone by. Their cases have been considered by special committees that have been set up, but the committees' recommendations have not been carried out. Speaking generally, I suppose the men now get pensions only about 40 per cent, or 50 per cent. higher than when they were fixed many years ago, and we all know that the cost of living has increased very much more than that. Only this very night, as I was coming to the House, I saw an old man standing outside the kerb in the Strand selling newspapers. He wore a couple of medals. I bought a newspaper, and put to him a few questions about his service. He had the medal granted for service on the march to Kandahar. He told me he had taken part in another war about that time, and that he was also in the Boer Rebellion of 1881, 41 years ago. That old man, this very night, is standing in the Strand selling newspapers. I say, with deliberation, that whatever the financial condition of the country may be, these men are entitled to a better recognition of the services they have rendered. They are entitled to end a life of honourable service to the nation with a well won pension, and if the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Banton) goes into the Lobby I shall certainly go with him.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): We can none of us be deaf to an appeal such as that contained in the last words of the right hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. G. Barnes), but in regard to some of the other arguments he has addressed to the House I am really in doubt whether for once he has not been speaking in an
ironic vein. It must really not be put against the policy which it is my duty to advocate that there is any unfulfilment of a bargain. Surely it stands obvious to common sense that what the State is doing at present is fulfilling a bargain made with these pensioners. The case put against that to-night, with much eloquence, is that that bargain ought to be revised. I cannot but suppose that there was something of a note of irony in the right hon. Member's argument, and I suspect an even stronger note of irony in his argument based on the proceedings of last night. His arguments weread hominem, and I, at any rate, am not subject to special reply. Is it seriously put to the House that, because a certain thing was done last night which every Member will realise, whatever its merits, must have the most grave consequences to the finances of the year, the House is therefore to consider itself, as it were, turned loose to continue those actions time after time, with ever increasing gravity to the finances of the year? Surely this argument also must be ironical.

Mr. G. BARNES: All I meant to convey was that if the House thought fit to give money to comparatively well-to-do people, if they had no more regard than that for the finances of the country at the present moment, for my part I am going to see, so far as my vote and influence go, that the poor are going to have a share as well.

Mr. YOUNG: The moral I should like to derive from the circumstances to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is that the. House should have, indeed, a great deal more regard than that to the financial circumstances of the country and that, if any use is to be made of the event of last night, it is to be used as a foundation for an appeal that the House will, indeed, bring itself to a sense of the extreme gravity of the responsibility which rests upon it, in such circumstances as those in which we are, in dealing with any question of additional expenditure. There was something, which one could not but welcome, in the observations of the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Banton). I am sure we all specially welcomed his eloquent tribute, coming from those benches, to the magnificences of the British Empire and the services of those soldiers and sailors which have done so much to obtain that expansion
and to enlarge those glories. We all registered, I am sure, a firm resolution to remember his eloquence on future occasions when other issues turn up for debate in this House. There was something which I found a little to regret in his observations. I thought it was regrettable that there should be any tendency at all, in a Debate in this House, to make any sort of party question of the `deep, the overwhelming debt which every Mem of this House feels he owes to these old and faithful servants, who have served it, not in the ways of peace, but in the forefront of the battle. It is, of course, an appeal to which no heart can fail to respond, and, knowing how strong that appeal can be, knowing how much we must all feel it in our hearts, I think we ought to be a little particularly on our guard, on such occasions as this, not to be carried away by the warmth of emotion to do what we should like to do for the benefit of one class at the expense of justice to the community as a whole.
A little element, perhaps, of prejudicial sympathy has been, I cannot 'but think, introduced into the discussion by enlarging it to too wide an extent. These matters about the pay of the Army and Navy, be their merits what they may, are not truly under discussion on the present occasion. There lies before us a very much smaller issue. Certain pensions were earned by the old soldiers and sailors. They retired on those pensions. Thereafter the country went through the great agony of the War, and the great hardships inflicted by a great rise in prices. The State took a certain measure in the year 1920 to remedy the worst of those hardships by the Pensions (Increase) Act. The single issue, I venture to suggest, before the House to-night, is that much narrower one. Was that special measure taken to relieve those old pensioners in 1920 as much as we ought to do, or was it not? All these other and wider issues, these matters of prejudice about a man getting so little pay in comparison with somebody else, are not in issue. The issue is simply this question of whether we ought to reopen the pensions' settlement of 1920 in favour of these pensioners. I would ask the House to follow me into one or two details of finance. I want to put before it facts, which I cannot but think the House will consider to 'be very relevant indeed, for in the formation of a true opinion as to
what ought to be done, we must see exactly how wide the problem is, how great the hardships are, what people are affected, and so on. Let me consider rather in detail the Service to Which I naturally turn, and with which I have the better acquaintance, the Service of the Navy.
The majority of the old pensioners of the Navy have actually clone some term of service during the War, in respect of which their pensions have been reassessed upon a higher scale, so that they do not come under our discussion to-day at all. That affects the majority of all the old pre-War pensioners of the Navy, they have got a re-assessment on the higher scale, and the House will see how very much that limits the area of this discussion. Of the remainder—I am talking of the Navy—no fewer than 9,250 have profited by the Pensions (Increase) Act of 1920 and have got their increases under that Act, and so they are not on the pre-War basis any longer. The House will like to know how much that costs. Those increases under the Pensions (Increase) Act for the pre-War pensioners are costing us £170,000 a year, and the average increase which the pre-War pensioners are enjoying under that Act is £18 7s. 6d. That limits the number of pre-War pensioners of the Navy who are on their pre-War pensions unincreascd—those to whom the Mover and Seconder of this Motion have addressed themselves in particular—to something more than 3,000 only of the total number of Naval pensioners, and that is something round about, but not more than, a quarter of the total, so that the numbers are comparatively few. As to those, one reason why that quarter are not getting the benefits of the increase under the Pensions (Increase) Act is because their incomes are in excess of the limits prescribed by that, Act; they did not get an increase if a married man had an income of more than £200 a year, and if a single man had an income of more than £150 a year, so that many, no doubt, or some of those 3,000 are not getting their increase because they have private means, and so on, and are getting more than that income. The remainder will not be able to get the increase under that Act for what reason? Because they are not yet 60 years of age, and as to those it is a. probability that when they are 60 years of age they will
get their increases under the Act, and enjoy the benefits which the House has already prescribed as an addition to pre-War pensioners. Therefore, I think the House will agree, that if you take all these circumstances into consideration, the hardships are really very much less than have been described, and the number of persons affected is very small in eons parison with the number suggested, and is diminishing.

Sir DAVIDSON: Is it not a fact that since the Pensions (Increase) Act has been in operation there have been a number of pensioners getting between 10s. and 11s. a week? That is our point. That is not at all the point dealt with by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. YOUNG: The hon. and gallant Member is addressing himself to the amount of increase provided by the Pensions (Increase) Act.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: No, the total pension—not the increase.

Mr. YOUNG: The amount of maximum pension that is possible under the Act is, of course, an entirely different question, and one which remains for consideration. As to the Army, I will not trouble the House with equally detailed statistics. I will only give the two most important figures—

Sir J. DAVIDSON: I am sorry to trouble the hon. Gentleman, but may I have a reply to my question?

Mr. YOUNG: Yes; if the hon. and gallant Member will permit me to develop my argument upon the lines I intended, he will find that I shall proceed to these matters, which give him so much interest, at a later stage. Dealing with the Army, as I say, in less detail than the Navy, two facts of most interest, I think, to the House will be these—that the total cost, of the increases under the Pensions (Increase) Act to Army pensioners is £160,000 a year, and that the average increase of the pensions affected by that Act is 45 per cent., which, of course, is a very substantial increase in comparison with the original pension. Figures have been quoted by hon. Members as to the total cost which would result to the State by this Motion. I regret to say that the figures which have been quoted in the course of the discussion are not accurate.
The cost would be very substantially more than those figures which have been suggested to the House. It was suggested that the total cost of the Motion in the form in which it is moved would be only £500,000 a year for the whole service involved. The actual cost, so far as it is possible to estimate—and these matters have been estimated with some accuracy—would be £610,000 a year for the Army, and at least £100,000 for the Navy, making a cost of between £700,000 and £750,000 a year.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: For the first year.

Mr. YOUNG: For the first year. The House will see at once that it is no negligible or insignificant addition to the expenditure of the year. The point of view I have to suggest—and this is an argument which I should like to present to the House with a great deal of force—is that if there be any justification for this increase to one class of pensioner, there can be no justification for refusing to extend it to all classes of the nation's pensioners—no justification whatever. The broad outline of the position is exactly the same for all. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I will not throw down that proposition before the House without venturing to support it with arguments. If you are to re-open your pension settlement with the old soldiers and old sailors, there are other classes you must consider, as I suggest, as coming under the same head. This Motion only deals with the men of the Army and Navy. What difference can there be, on the wide principle, if the cost of living has gone up, and pensions are to be re-opened, between men and officers? I know of none. What difference can there be between the military pensioners of the State and the civil pensioners?

Mr. ALFRED DAVIES (Clitheroe): Would not that argument apply when the. Pensions (Increase) Act was passed in 1920?

Mr. YOUNG: Yes, that applies to all pensioners. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in this respect. No difference was made then, and I am venturing to argue that no difference should be made now. On the broad principle that the pension should be revised, in view of the cost of living, civil servants, teachers and police—all those classes—
are entitled to the same consideration. If one class be entitled to consideration, on the broad principle other classes are entitled to consideration, and the only difference—and I admit the difference—is the difference in the extent of the sympathy you feel, and your impression of the services rendered; but with regard to the situation in respect of the household budget, there is no difference at all. At any rate, I think the House will agree with me, although some may differ on the point of theory, that practically it would be very difficult to refuse the extension, and we know the pressure that would be brought to bear. We have had recent examples of the force with which pressure can be exercised. If this principle were to be applied at all, the only fair method would be to apply it broadcast, which would cost the nation £5,000,000 a year. I do present that difficulty to the serious consideration of the House in the state of our national finances.
In the one or two words I have to say on the next heading, I do desire to avoid misconstruction. I am not going to say these two or three words in any sense as depreciating the services of the soldier and sailor. I trust I may be relieved in advance of the least likelihood that I would do that. Let me take my courage in my hand, and say the words I have to say. I am saying them for our own consolation when we talk of the enormous debt we owe these men. The matter to which I want to call attention is the advantage which the old soldiers and old sailors enjoy. I think the House will like to think of the enormous efforts that are made by voluntary organisations for finding employment for old soldiers and old sailors, and the advantages which they enjoy in that respect. I think the House, as the master of the Services of the State, will like to think of the great efforts that are made for the employment of old soldiers and old sailors in the service of the State. I do not know whether the House is fully aware of what has been done in this respect. Every possible job is kept for the ex-soldier and the ex-sailor, and quite rightly so. The Post Office, of course, offers a wider field—

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does that apply to men over 50?

Mr. YOUNG: No. There is a difference between the soldiers, the sailors, and the civil servants; but what I say is that the principles of applying possible employment for soldiers and sailors are what I have stated, and I am sure the House will agree that they are right. Preference is, of course, given to the ex-service man as against the civilian. That is a principle which we all greatly desire to see increased in every possible way. Further, the next and most obvious rule of preference is always to give the disabled man occupation in which he can be employed as against the sound man—another thing for which I do not know that I need apologise. Lastly—and particular instances have been presented in our discussion to-night—an effort is always made, as between the long-service man and the short-service man, to find a permanent job for the long-service man; that., again, I feel sure the House will agree is right. For all the reasons—which have been so frequently used in debate to-night—the long-service man comes from his long service less qualified than the short-service man to find employment elsewhere. Therefore he has more than a right that he should be given preference in finding work under the State which he has served so well.
10.0 P.M.
Finally, let me say that it perhaps is not so widely recognised as it should be that the disability pensions granted in respect to disabilities caused in former wars have been raised to the rates of the disability pensions of the Great War. Considerable misapprehension apparently exists, especially in regard to particular cases, and it has been supposed that a man suffering from disabilities and wounds in previous wars is less well off in respect of his disability pension than the wound pensioners of the Great War. That is not so. All these pensions in respect of disability caused in previous wars have been brought up to the Great War rate. I have dwelt on these matters with a view of covering the subject as to what men and how many men are affected. Finally, what is the brighter side of the picture to set against the disadvantages. Let me address myself to this aspect in what may be the logical course following the questions or the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson) who, I think, has now left the House. When the Pensions (Increases) Act was passed, there was a certain
amount of discussion as to its rates and amounts. Nobody for a moment professes that the amounts provided under the Act were all that we should like to give to a deserving class of old servants, but it was thought quite impossible at that time, 1920, to give more in view of our financial circumstances. The further burden put upon the State was £1,000,000 a year, which that Act is now costing the taxpayers in increased pensions charges. At that time our finances were in a state of comparative health to what they are now. Again, the cost of living was still rising. Since then and now we have had to have regard to our financial troubles, but more important still since 1920 the cost of living has fallen from 155 to 86 per cent. above the pre-War level.
The case I have to present is this: that we should look upon this as a particular case, in the general principle, that a pensions bargain once made should be kept. No one would argue that a pension should be decreased with the falling cost of living, once it is given. The House will remember that recently I had to stand here and defend this principle in the case of the civil servants' pensions. I think the House then agreed with my view, that, as a general principle, pensions once given by way of bargain should stand. By the Act of 1920 the House definitely came to the conclusion to extend relief for the worst hardships of this particular class of pensioners. The case I have to present is, that we ought not now to depart from that bargain, in view of the altered circumstances of the times. We must hold the balance between the various classes in the country. These pensioners of the Army and Navy, near as they lie to our hearts, are only a single class who feel the hardships inflicted upon whole classes of people living upon small fixed incomes during the War and since. They are all suffering alike from these great hardships. Such cases as those presented ^-o us with so much eloquence to-night on behalf of the soldiers and sailors might be duplicated from any class of persons living on small fixed incomes. I ask the House, therefore, to agree that we must fix the measure and extent to which the State can give relief to one section of this great class at the expense of the others. I do not believe that there is anything which has occurred since the Act
of 1920 that could cause us to revise our decision at the present time. Believe me, the true way to benefit those old folk, and those other people with whom we are brought in contact, in common with every man and woman in the country, with respect to their incomes is this: To limit our budgets, to keep down expenditure, to reduce and not increase taxation and expenditure—even for the most worthy objects—then in the general prosperity which we shall restore to the country they will benefit equally with the rest of us.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken, I am sure, has had a most unpleasant task, and I sympathise with him in having had to do it. I wish to say, however, that in my opinion the major part of his speech has been altogether beside the point, because what we are dealing with now is a certain small class of men, not one of whom is less than 63 years of age, old pensioners who ought to have received the same increase in pension in January, 1919, as the men did who are now 62. Why the difference should have been made then between a man who is now 63 and one who is now 62 I cannot understand. It was given to the man who is now 62, and not to the man who is now 63, because the man of 62 happened then to be liable to be called for active service. I am not belittling their service, but probably many of those men have not seen as much service in earlier campaigns as the men who are now 63.
The men who are now at the most 62 are getting a basic rate of three halfpence per day per year of service, while the men who are 63, and who may have seen much more active service, are getting a basic rate of one halfpenny per day per year of service. That is one-third of the amount given to a man with only one year's difference in service. That is our point, and none of the other stuff that the Financial Secretary talked about has anything to do with the point, and a great deal of it has been absolutely irrelevant matter. I would venture to say that two-thirds of it was irrelevant to the point about which we are speaking. We are speaking of the men who were not called up, although many volunteered, but they were refused on account of age, and they are now getting one-third of the pension which the men who are one year younger are now getting.
As to the revision of the bargain, what was the bargain made with the men who were 54 in 1914? It was exactly the same bargain as was made with the men who were 55. Why revise the bargain in the one ease and not in the other? There is no rhyme or reason for it. The men who did not get this rise of three-halfpence in 1919 have been dealt with in a mean and unjust manner, it is a most gross piece of injustice. There was such a terrible lot of irrelevant matter brought in by the Financial Secretary that he seems to have befogged the thing altogether, but I hope that I have put it straight. We are dealing now with the men who may have saved India for us in the Indian Mutiny, who are from 77 to 80 years of age to-day, and therefore cannot do manual work of any sort; the men who marched with Roberts to Kandahar, must he 68 to-day what of the men who saved the Zululand at Rorke's Drift —where are the Welsh Members? Where is the Prime Minister? Because it was the famous 24th Regiment that saved Zululand. These are the men we want this three-halfpence per day per year for. What of the men who marched with Herbert Stewart's desert column to save Gordon at Khartoum? They too must be 63 by this time.
I have become so angry listening to what has been argued by the Financial Secretary against this proposal that I am afraid I have rather lost my head, but I hope I have shown clearly what we are driving at. I am going back to the bargain which was broken in 1919 to the men who were 63, but was not broken to the men who were 62. There is no reason for having done so. The Financial Secretary has argued that if we revise these pensions, it will also be necessary to revise Civil Service and other pensions. I would like to point out that the pre-War pension of a postman or a policeman was three times as great as that of a seaman, of a soldier or sailor. The postman could serve up to 60 on full pay and had the advantage of bringing up his family whilst on full pay, but the sailor and the soldier serving in India received meagre pay; he could not marry until late in life, and with his pension of 8s. 2d. per week he would probably be bringing up a small family whilst the postman had been able to rear his family on full pay; the
pensioned postman is three times as well off as the sailor.
Then you have also to consider the advantages offered in the two services. When the soldier receives his pension generally he knows nothing about labour, and he is compulsorily thrown into the labour market at 42 knowing nothing about it. Consider the environment of the soldier serving in India or the seaman on the east coast of Africa on the other hand, the postman is probably marking down a little shop which he is going to acquire, and probably the policeman marries the cook down the area. The pre-War pension of 8s. 2d. given to the able seaman is increased under the Pensions Increase Act by 50 per cent. making it 12s. 3d., while the postman gets 23s. 6d., plus 50 per cent., making, say, 35s. per week. In one case the man has a starvation wage, and in the other he gets quite enough to live on and moreover has a family to help him when he receives his pension. That is the distinction between the soldier and the sailor and all other classes of pensioner. The Financial Secretary has referred to the sum which this proposal is going to cost, and I think he said it would be £700,000 all told. The rigid economist will say, "I will not vote for this unless you can show how you can save that amount somewhere else."
It is the duty of the Government to find that saving. If they do not know where to find it, I will tell them. The Financial Secretary told us to-day that in this year's Estimates £352,000 is appropriated to Pembroke Dockyard. That yard is not wanted by the Navy; it is absolutely superfluous. The Navy Estimates are not framed on philanthropic principles in order to find maintenance for those out of employment. They are framed for the Navy, and there is no just reason for that £352,000 being spent on Pembroke this year. That sum would provide 32 times what we are asking for naval men. We were told yesterday that we are spending £200,000 a month on our Army in Constantinople. What are they doing? There are, I believe, 127 staff officers—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is all very wide of the Motion. It is not right to introduce questions of which notice is not given in the original Motion.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I am very sorry. I was only trying to help the Govern-
ment. I think I have shown that where the saving can be made; it is their duty to find this money; the present state of affairs is a disgrace to the nation.

Mr. S. ROBERTS: I do not think the right hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. G. Barnes) in his speech showed quite his usual generosity in dealing with the hon. Member who put down this Amendment. He seemed to charge him with, on every occasion, not. showing a sympathetic attitude when a Motion of a sentimental character is put down. I rather think he was really praising him for his consistency. Consistency nowadays is so rare, and particularly consistency in the interests of economy. It ought, therefore, when found, to be praised and not the reverse. The right hon. Gentleman used a phrase which I do not think was altogether justified. He spoke of the Amendment as being mean. It is very easy to be generous with the public money and to make accusations of meanness against those who are endeavouring to tread the path of economy. I hope, whatever the House may think of the arguments we may raise for this Amendment, that it will, at any rate, give us credit, not for hardness of heart, or meanness of spirit, or lack of appreciation of the services of these men, or lack of appreciation of the difficulties with which they are faced, I hope they will give us credit in voting for this Amendment for looking at overriding principles which we think are due to the condition of the country's finances.
I admit that the Division of yesterday has put us in a position of some considerable difficulty. I must say, although I do not like bringing in a personal matter, that it was only either some defect in my eyesight or the defect of a typewriter which twisted a "6" into a "9," that prevented me from being present to support the Government last night. It has put us in a difficulty, and has made one feel inclined, although one had intended to support this Amendment to-night, to have nothing further to do with endeavouring to support economy. Yet at the same time, if that feeling were carried into effect to any large extent, it would lead to such a not of expenditure that, as sensible men, we must try to put down that rather natural feeling of resentment, and stick to the path of economy as far as we can. It is not an easy path. It is a
lonely path. You do not get any friends or any votes by going that way, and you leave behind a trail of opponents perhaps a little more embittered, and, what is perhaps harder, a trail of friends' disappointment.
I do not want to go into the merits of the case to-night, but I want to deal with the question in the light of the over-riding considerations. I admit everything that has been said with regard to the deserving character of these men, but I put to myself, and I think every Member of the House should put to himself, this question: If we admit that this is a deserving case, if this is an expenditure that we should like to see incurred, is it not all the more our duty to resist the temptation of voting for it? It is such an easy thing to vote against expenditure of which we disapprove. The idea that economies should come first usually comes from those people who desire economies upon those things that they do not like. There are things upon which I should desire to economise. I am one of those who dislike the large expenditure which is still going on in the Middle East. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Shettleston (Rear-Admiral Adair) about the money which is being spent and which I cannot help thinking is not serving any national purpose in Constantinople, Palestine, and Iraq. Personally I should like to vote against the Supplementary Estimate that was foreshadowed this afternoon. But how can I criticise the Government. on items of expenditure if at the same time I thrust in upon them when they are endeavouring to resist?
That seems to me to be the over-riding consideration. It is necessary, in the interests of carrying on the services of the country, at times to vote in favour of expenditure, or of keeping up expenditure which is at present upon the Estimates. But the distinction comes in with the question of new expenditure which has been thrust upon us, and I think that at the present time national considerations, considerations of the revival of trade, of getting rid of unemployment, are so great, that it is a duty to resist all national expenditure as it may arise. There are some Members of this House, and some of our administrators and governors, who are, no doubt, born spenders. There are others who achieve the spending capacity by communication with the former but there are some who have spending thrust
upon them. Let us sympathise with them, and, if we believe in economy, if we have any faith in what we preach, do not let us be among the thrusters.

Mr. TILLETT: I am very anxious that we shall realise that a great deal of hypocrisy and cant has been spoken to-night about economy. I am not going to throw any stones at all. I am one of those Members who believe that the Treasury is very anxious for economy. They have been very anxious all the time to economise, but they have not been able to economise. Circumstances over which they have had no control have forced them to be generous against their will and against their own reason and intelligence. There was a time when £1,000,000,000 was spoken of in the lightest vein possible. Then we got down to a more sober vein, but we were still prodigal of a mere £100,000,000. Then we got still more cautious and came down to, say, £50,000,000 and, then it was £10,000,00, and now it is £2,500,000 for 10 years that we are so anxious about. If we had not been prodigal, if we had not done the things we ought to have done and so on, I should say we were in a very good position. I have sympathy with the Chancellor. If I were the Chancellor I do not think the country would be as safe as it is at present. There would be no Debate to-night upon this matter at any rate. But when one hears these profound arguments uttered with the best Front. Bench mannerisms and benedictions expressed on economy, and one listens to economy in this House, which has just passed through a great War—and we blundered. The Government has blundered. The Cabinet has blundered. I do not believe we could have made any more mistakes than we have made. We have been so prodigal in our mistakes. But I do not know that any other party would have done very much better. At least they would have been open to many great problems and difficulties. I would not give you away. I would not sell you. Here we are making statements with mathematical accuracy, and one Gentleman over there said he knew a commissionaire, a gentleman who runs for a shilling and that sort of thing, who was well off—one swallow for a whole summer—and that was his arguments after his riotous prodigality last night for the other folks.
Economy must come on the old man, on the least protected, on those at least who have rendered service to their country. There is talk of patriotism and shedding your blood for your country, and then comes along a very profound, statesmanlike person who says this is a time when we must economise—this paltry, mean economy and political parsimony that is a discredit to the House. I do not want to blame the Treasury because I believe they really want us to overwhelm them. All they want is the kick, and I hope the House will give them the kick. I hope the House will stand up for the men who rendered service to the country—10 years in ever-diminishing quantity, for ever dwindling and dwindling into nothingness, and when one realises all these things, after the wanton welter and waste of wealth in too many cases, why should we in a moment of riotous parsimony and unctuous hypocrisy come to our bearings? The Chancellor is a very responsible person. I would rather have my job than his at the moment. I do not want this House to let. the country know that after many years of misdirection and difficulty, at this last moment, in a gospel of perfection, we are trying to undo the work of yesterday, and are going to be economical. I do not care whether it is the Geddes axe, or the "Daily Mail" axe, or the "Times" axe, or any other axe but I do protest against debating this matter seriously, when such a paltry sum is involved, and when the issues are blended into all the golden traditions of our courage, of our race, and of our Empire, in regard to the men who have served us. I do protest against our turning to them at this period of our economy, and saying: "Your time is past. You have to suffer." I appeal to the gallantry of this House. I am putting my side of the case against the cold, mathematical, statistical, sardonic attitude that some people have taken up and I appeal on the ground of common sense, and on the ground of our common humanity. If we love our country we can only love our country by honouring those who have given the best of their lives to make it what it is.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I want to say one word from the point of view of what the hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. Tillett) called the cold, statistical, sardonic and villainous point of view. I shall support him in the case that he
raises, and I shall support him from that point of view. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts) asked how could we believe that the Government were extravagant in certain things urge economy in those things, if we urge the Government to spend money in other things. That seems to me to be a point of view which I cannot understand. If I had taken that point of view a little more than a year ago, when I had the honour of first entering this House, I should have entered it as an anti-waste candidate, and not as a Coalition Unionist. I entered it as a Coalition Unionist, because I propose to exercise my judgment as to the direction in which economy should be exercised.
I have very great sympathy with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the case which he has put forward, but I think he will agree with me that it would be to mislead the House if he gave the House to understand that our pension laws for civil servants, for soldiers and for sailors were in all respects logical at the present time. They are not. We all know, certainly those who have had inside experience of the Civil Service, that there are cases of hardship in the Civil Service, and have been for years, possibly equal—I have known one or two cases—in hardship to any which were urged to-night in the case of the soldier and the sailor. Our pension laws are not logical. They are not logical between class and class of Government employés, they are not logical even among classes, and they create infinite hardship within each class. The Financial Secretary, who has the right to address this House from a point of view which should make it impossible for any hon. Gentleman to accuse him of coldness in this matter, will admit that there is no part of our legislation which so urgently needs comprehensive and careful revision as the whole system of our pension laws, and I think that the House will feel after listening to his extremely able speech tonight that he has been unable with the best will in the world to convince the House that the present legislation as regards pensions is logical as between class and class or as between age and age. Personally I should be the last to wish to press the Government to take a decision to-night which might lead them further than they or perhaps any hon.
Member would desire to go, but I do say that the time has now come when a competent authoritative body should be set up to survey the whole field of our pension laws, and if I could receive from the Government a promise that they would set up such a body with instructions to issue an early interim Report on such hard cases as these that have been put before the House to-night then I would not dream, so far as I could control the matter, of pressing this Motion to a Division. I think it possible that the right way to deal with these cases is largely to increase the provision which has for many years, almost immemorial, been made for hard cases in the Civil Service and for other Government employés by way of Civil List pensions. I think that possiblyex gratia pensions of that kind in hard cases would be the best way to deal with these and other similar cases. I do not know. I do know this. We have before us to-night a class of cases which in the aggregate represent such hardship that unless I can receive—I think that I speak for some other hon. Members, although I have no authority—unless we can receive some promise from the Government to set up an inquiry such as I have indicated, we shall be obliged to support this Motion in the Division Lobby.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): I confess that, personally, I am at this moment suffering from a considerable disillusion. I am an economist by race, by nature, and by instinct, and I saw in front of me a vista which is seldom presented to a public man, that of indulging one's prejudices and at the same time being infinitely popular. I heard so much said in favour of economy that I thought that I should be the most popular man in this country at the same time that I was pursuing the path which my reason and my prejudice indicated. But I have lived long enough now to know that that was a complete delusion on my part. The economist who endeavours to practise economy in this country has no friends whatever. We have had in the case of the last few weeks three notable examples of what I am referring to. All the matters raised were important and commended themselves to the sympathy of various bodies of Members. There was the question of old age pensions, which excited everybody's sympathy.
We had yesterday the case of the teacher, and we know the extent to which he excited the sympathy of the House. To-clay we have the case of the pre-War pensioner. I say at once that, if one were in a position to do so, there is no object for which one would so readily find the money as for that presented to-night. I sympathise entirely with the speeches that have been made. I do not think that any of them has laid too great an emphasis on the services which these men have rendered to the country. I listened to a most eloquent speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. G. Barnes); but the speech he made with regard to the pre-War pensioner could have been made with regard to millions of other people in this country. His speech was founded entirely upon distress.
What about the 2,000,000 unemployed? Are they not suffering distress? What about the middle classes of this country, who have endured privations such as they have never hitherto been asked to bear? What about the clerks? What about some of the professional classes? Distress is rampant throughout the realm now. If you set out to relieve all cases of hardship, the revenues of the country would require to be enormously increased before you would be able to deal with one-tenth of them. I do not wish to put forward this argument as an argument which should create final judgment, but it ought to have some bearing on the situation. In 1920 the case of the pre-War pensioner was considered deliberately by the House. His condition at that time was worse than it is to-day, because the cost of living was higher then than it is now. The House came to a certain conclusion, and increased the pensions by a certain proportion. Today the pre-War pensioner is in a better position than he was then. But the other factor is one of immense importance. The country is in an infinitely worse position to-day than in 1920 for the granting of relief. Look at our revenue, as anticipated with the current year, compared with 1920, and as it is anticipated to last for some time. You have to recollect also that what you propose for this year you must carry out for some years to come. You will not be in a better position next year than now to grant this relief.
There is one other matter. A considerable part of the argument addressed
to the House by certain hon. Members was based on the theory that the pension granted to old soldiers and sailors was intended to be something which would be sufficient for their subsistence for the rest of their lives. That is a totally erroneous point of view. The fact is that the soldier and sailor are supposed to retire from their profession at a time when they are still of sufficient physical vigour to earn a livelihood in some other walk of life. No one has ever pretended that the pension granted in these circumstances is such as will maintain a man and his family in full subsistence. This proposal undoubtedly means a considerable sum of money.

Mr. SEXTON: You did not apply that principle to the Army and Navy pensions.

Sir R. HORNE: I think exactly the same rule applies, so far as the pensions of the Navy and Army are concerned. I say this involves a considerable sum of money. It means £700,000 in the present year, and it also means—and this is a cogent fact brought forward by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—a demand from many other pensioners which would involve a sum of £5,000,000 a year, if it were granted. My Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) said the whole system of our pensions was illogical. I entirely agree. I am one of those who would desire, like him, to see an investigation conducted in regard to these pensions, and some readjustment of them made. But, although the system is illogical, and although we cannot, by any process which could be carried out to-night, bring complete logic into the system, yet there is this logic, which seems to me to be applicable to all these situations in Parliament—where one class in the community gets a particular advantage, every other class claims a corresponding advantage. I do not know that any hon. Member who has spoken to-night will guarantee that the House will resist claims similar to this on behalf of these other classes of pensioners if this is granted. I go so far as to say that I doubt whether any hon. Member who has spoken in favour of the Motion would guarantee his own vote were such claims made. Accordingly I put it to the House that we cannot afford to indulge, at the present time, in these forms of expenditure, however laudable they may be.
The best way to bring about a better condition of things for all classes of the community is to limit our expenditure, and not to increase it. Not merely would this form of expenditure bring about additional hardship to all classes in the community, but in the end, by raising the cost of living, would bring injury to the very people it is intended to benefit.

Mr. ADAMSON: I only intervene for a few moments. Like the Chancellor of the Exchequer— [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] If hon. Members listen they will hear. Like the Chancellor, I am by racial instinct an economist, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is such a thing as justice as well as economy. The Motion we are discussing asks that we should bestow justice on a very deserving section of the community. The Chancellor told us that other sections of the community had to make sacrifices during the trying times through which we have passed as well as the pre-War pensioners. May I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are degrees in sacrifice as there are degrees in other things While some sections of the community may have had to make a sacrifice as compared with pre-War times, it has not been a sacrifice that has brought them to the point of starvation. In the case of the men with which this Resolution deals, men paid from 7s. to 10s. a week, it means virtual starvation to them, when one takes into account the present high costs of living. The Secretary to the Treasury, in the admirable speech that he made from his point of view, told us that the cure for this condition of things was that we should refuse all forms of expenditure, with a view to bringing about greater prosperity in the country than exists under present conditions. I should like to ask both the Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, supposing we did that and prosperity did come, how much of it would be enjoyed by the men whose cause we are pleading to-night? How much of the prosperity of a country can be enjoyed by men who are getting from 7s. to 10s. a week?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury also told us that if he accepted this Resolution he would have to consider the case of the pensions of the officers as well. The seconder of this Resolution, in a
very admirable speech, said that if it came to a choice of nothing being done unless the case of the officers were taken into consideration also, he believed that the officers, rather than see nothing done, would be prepared to give way. There is a vast difference between the position of the officers and that of the men for whom we are pleading. In the officers' case, while their pensions may not be on the same scale as those of the officers who served in the recent War, they are at least getting as much as will enable them to live in some degree of comfort; whereas the men, with whom this Resolution deals, are not getting as much as will enable them to live in any degree of comfort. Many of them are getting such a miserable pittance that it means actual starvation. While I am, as I have said, an economist and anxious to see economy enforced, I think the services rendered by the men with whom we are dealing has been of such value to the country that their case really ought to be considered.
I had hoped, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer followed the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings, that he was going to take up the suggestion which the Noble Lord made that some special form of inquiry should be set up. I think that some special form of inquiry should be set up, and set up quickly. If you are going to deal with the case of these men, whatever you do must be done quickly, because within 10 years, in the natural course of events, these men will all have died, and you will then have no opportunity of doing anything for them. Whatever we are going to do in their case ought to be done now. Notwithstanding that the country is not as rich as it was a number of years ago, I think that justice demands that the case of these men should come under review, and I add my appeal to those which have already been made in favour of the Motion.

Mr. REMER: I came down here with quite an open mind to listen to the Debate and to form my judgment as to the question which has been put before us, and I must say that I have been more than convinced by the speeches which I have heard against the Motion, and particularly by the speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I think it is absolutely necessary that we should in the strongest possible way put our foot
down against these attempts that are being made to spend more money. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson), when he tells the House that he belongs to a party of economy, must be ignorant of what his party have done, and when we remember that during the past few weeks that party have actually brought forward Resolutions which meant the spending of no less than £65,000,000, it will be realised how futile such a remark was.

Mr. BANTON: rose in Ives place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. REMER: My particular reason for rising at this hour of the evening is because I have listened in vain for any speeches condemning this Motion from the hon. Member for Dover (Sir T. Poison)—

Mr. BANTON: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. REMER: I have listened in vain for any condemnation from the hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Erskine) or any other member of the Anti-Waste party, who have never done anything but —[Interruption.]

Sir J. DAVIDSON: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. REMER: There are people on the other side of the House who think that by these Resolutions they can create a new Heaven and a new earth, but that, of course, is utterly absurd when we realise—

Mr. BANTON: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. REMER: When we realise the spirit which—[Interruption.]

Mr. S. WALSH: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his
assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. REMER: As I was saying, when we realise the spirit which—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRANT-IN-AID.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
That a sum not exceeding £1,500,000 (including a Supplementary sum of £500,000), be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year eliding on the 31st day of March, 1923, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Revenues of the Government of Northern Ireland.

Question again proposed.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to. [Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — OXFORD AND ST. ALBANS WINE PRIVILEGES (ABOLITION) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to abolish certain rights and privileges of the City of Oxford and of the City of St. Albans in connection with the sale of wine and the granting of licences therefor and for purposes incidental thereto, it is expedient to authorise, in connection with the abolition of rights and privileges under the said Act,—

(a) the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, to the Corporation of the City of Oxford of the sum of three thousand two hundred pounds, together with the amount of any costs which may appear to the Treasury to have been properly incurred by the Corporation in connection with the said abolition; and
511
(b) the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, to the Corporation of the City of St. Albans of the sum of one thousand two hundred pounds."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — AIR MINISTRY (KENLEY COMMON ACQUISITION) [EXPENSES].

Resolution reported:
That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any expenditure incurred by the President of the Air Council under any Act of the present Session to confirm an agreement. between the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London and the President of the Air Council in relation to the acquisition of certain lands in the county of Surrey, and for purposes in connection therewith, or under the agreement thereby confirmed.

Resolution agreed to.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS, 1882 TO 1919.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parishes of Rogerstone, Machen Lower, Craig, Rumney, Saint Mellons, Peterstone, Wentloog, Saint Brides, Malpas, Saint Woollos, Duffryn, Michaelstone-y-Vedw, Henllys, Marshfield, and Coed Kernew, in the rural district of Saint Mellons, in the county of Monmouth, which was presented on the 20th day of March, 1922 (H.C. 56), be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Shoreham-by-Sea and the parish of Lancing, in the rural district of Steyning West, in the administrative county of West Sussex, which was presented on the 20th day of March, 1922 (H.C. 56-I), be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the Royal burgh of Renfrew and parts of the parishes of Renfrew and Paisley, in the county of Renfrew, which was presented on the 7th day of February, 1922 (H.C. 3-VI), be approved."—[Mr. Neal.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

CANADIAN CATTLE EMBARGO.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Mr. STURROCK: I should like to ask the Leader of the. House to be good enough to give us an assurance that we shall have an early opportunity of discussing the very important question that has agitated public opinion outside in regard to the importation of Canadian store cattle. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us ample opportunity to raise this matter? Some days ago he told us—I will quote his own language:
I did undertake that I would find an opportunity, not necessarily a whole day, for the discussion of the subject, but that must be when we have real progress with Government business."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 10th May, 1922; cols. 2178–2179, Vol. 153.]
I think I may claim to be a loyal supporter of the Government, and I ask as that that my right hon. Friend will grant us not only one day, but from the point of view of my political opponents opposite, two days for the discussion of this very important matter. I have no wish that this matter should come before the House before the whole topic has been adequately considered, not only here, but elsewhere, and I think it is being well discussed in other quarters. I do hope and trust that when it does come before this House we shall have the presence of the Secretary of State for the Colonies in order that he may be able to give expression not only to his own views, but also to what he knows to be the feelings in Canada and other parts of the Empire. I have no wish whatsoever to detain the House, but I trust that the Lord Privy Seal will grant us at least one full Parliamentary clay for the discussion of this matter. [11oN. MEMBERS: "Two days."] I am quite willing to meet the request of my hon. Friend opposite, and I agree that two days would be better. I trust that at least we shall have one day, and that, in addition, the right hon. Gentleman will arrange an opportunity for us having placed before us the views of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I have no desire now to go into the merits of the question.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I think it is customary for hon. Members, and it is certainly convenient
when they propose to raise a question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House to convey some private intimation to the Minister concerned. I have had no notice from my hon. Friend, and it is only through the Patronage Secretary that I became aware that the hon. Member was going to bring this matter forward. If the hon. Member had given me notice, I should have been here at Eleven o'clock when he rose.

Mr. STURROCK: On a point of Order. I wish to state that I raised this question—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order. The hon. Member should ask the Leader of the House to give way.

Mr. STURROCK: I gave notice to the Chief Whip and also to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain Bunn) that I intended to raise this matter.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is a matter which concerns me as Leader of the House and notice should have been given to me. I was in the precincts of the House, and I am sorry my hon. Friend did not talk to me on this point face to face. The hon. Gentleman told the Patronage Secretary that he wished to raise the question of Canadian cattle embargo, but what he has raised to-night is the question of having an opportunity of debating that subject. I only say this by way of apology for not having been in my place when my hon. Friend rose. The hon. Gentleman must be really astonished at his own moderation. In a Session in which the Government business has made scarcely any progress, and where the majority of the days have been given to the discussion of financial business, very little progress being made with legislation, my hon. Friend asks for two days.

Mr. STURROCK: One day.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Two days by preference, or even a week, for the discussion of this question of embargo on Canadian cattle—for reasons which we all appreciate both of conviction and geography, and I would respectfully suggest to him that an exaggerated claim of that kind is calculated to bring upon him ridicule. It is obviously impossible to do anything of the kind. I have promised to make an opportunity for the House to discuss this question. Before
the opportunity has occurred, I have been asked to receive, and have received, a deputation from English agriculturists. The fate of a Minister who refuses to receive a deputation is known to Members of the House. The fate of a Minister who consents to receive a deputation is lamentable. If he receives a deputation from one side, he must, of course, receive a deputation from the other, and I have now been asked to receive a deputation from the other side, and it is the particular desire of that deputation, as it is the particular desire of my hon. Friend, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies should be present. That is a desire I heartily share. Accordingly, I have informed the deputation that I will receive them, but that, sharing their desire that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies should be with me to hear the burden of the day, the deputation must be postponed until my right hon. Friend has succeeded in obtaining that rest which I hope he will enjoy, but which he has forgone by returning to his duties because of the urgency of public affairs. Under these circumstances the matter must wait, I will not say on my right hon. Friend's convenience, but on his restoration. As regards the opportunity for discussion, T gave no sort of pledge at any time that I would treat this as a matter of urgency. I have said that I would find some opportunity for the House to discuss it, and I will observe that pledge, but I cannot now say when that opportunity will be. We really must make progress with the business which the Government has invited the House to consider before we take this extra subject. I believe that in all schools there are extras, but they are not included in the ordinary class. If my hon. Friend will use his influence to facilitate the progress of the class in which we normally work, it will make it easier for me to find those spare hours. This matter is of great interest, but is not of the same immediate urgency, because it is not a matter which the Government has immediately brought before the House as requiring its decision. I think that is all I can say. My hon. Friend may desire me to say more, but this is not the proper occasion, nor, since we are to have another opportunity, would it be suitable for me to do so.
Lastly, and perhaps for me the most conclusive reason of all, I will not do it because it would only bring me into conflict with my hon. Friend, for when this opportunity is found of a half-day, or a day, or two days or a week, at the end of the discussion, be it shorter or longer, I shall find myself painfully divided for the moment from my hon. Friend, I hope only to make our subsequent reunion the pleasanter for our temporary separation.

Captain W. BENN: We have all enjoyed the delightful speech which the Leader of the House has made, but anyone listening to it would hardly have imagined that he was dealing with a topic which excites the most intense feeling in the country, and behind which there is a by no means contemptible body of opinion. The right hon. Gentleman's statement, which I followed with intense pleasure, fell into two parts. First, he mildly chipped the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Sturrock) because he had taken the unusual course of communicating with the Government through what are called "the usual channels," and then he proceeded to a long disquisition on the rules of the school, but he gave no indication as to when this definite Government pledge is to be redeemed. The people of the country want to know when the Government are going to act on the report of their own Commission. The right hon. Gentleman has seen deputations—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: At present I have only seen one. One means many, no doubt, but that is a process involving time.

Captain BENN: It has been well said that "deputation" is a noun of multitude implying many, but not signifying much, and that seems to me to be the meaning the right hon. Gentleman attaches to it. Seriously, this is a matter on which public feeling is growing intense. It is held by some that most substantial pledges were given to the Dominion of Canada during the War by the then President of the Board of Agriculture, than whom no one could be better qualified, on behalf of the Government. They were fortified by the same expression of opinion by another President of the Board of Agriculture, Lord Long, and were understood by the Canadian Government as a definite promise. Even from that standpoint, and
leaving all other considerations out of account, this is not a matter on which the Government should definitely delay its decision. As far as one can judge from the jocular remarks of the Leader of the House, we are never to hear any more about it. "This year, next year, some time, never" is the general tone of his speech. I consider that this is a matter which should be debated in this House, and that the decision of the House upon it should he registered. I go further, and say that the decision of the House should prevail. When I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman on the subject, he said: "Oh, yes; we are going to give an opportunity for discussion and for the decision of the House, but we give no pledge whatever to make that decision operative." I contend that that is treating the House with great disrespect. When all is said and done, the House of Commons is the master of the Government; it is not the Government that is the master of the House of Commons. I go even further than the hon. Member for Montrose, and say that if the House has the opportunity to which it is entitled, and if it avails itself of that opportunity, to give a definite expression of its opinion, then it is the duty of the Government to see that that opinion is made operative by an Act.

Mr. WATERSON: So far as previous speakers are concerned, I cannot see for what public they speak. I endeavour to speak for the consumers. At the moment there is no more vital question affecting the great consuming public than this question of the removal of the embargo. I had hoped the right hon. Gentleman would have given us some indication of a provisional date. I shall not be so stupid as to suggest a definite date. I appreciate the difficulties in the right hon. Gentleman's way and the troublous times through which, as Leader of the House, he is passing. But he might give us some indication as to when the date may be. Hon. Members are receiving many letters. Even deputations are visiting us to see what is our opinion on the question. What are you going to do? Are you going to press on the Lord Privy Seal your desire to have the matter settled? Is it your intention to demand that he should put the decision of the Royal Commission into operation? These things
are engaging the attention of most of the attentive Members of this House and we are faced with this from our constituents. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give us some idea of a provisional date when this matter can be discussed. A pledge has been given that a Debate shall take place. That was some considerable time ago. The right hon. Gentleman told us that deputations are coming to him, but if he will give us a. provisional date as soon as the Whitsuntide Recess is over there will be ample opportunity between now and then to see all the deputations that are necessary.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope the hon. Member will not grudge me such little Whitsuntide holiday as I can get or insist that I should spend it in receiving deputations.

Mr. WATERSON: I should be the last person in the world to inflict too much hard work upon the right hon. Gentleman. I think every hon. Member knows that he attends to his duties very regularly and is one of the most consistent Members in being always in attendance. I should not like to rob him of his holidays, but between now and when the House rises there will be ample opportunity to receive deputations. He could then rest contented, and when on the seaside front he is anxious to engage his thoughts he would be able to think of the future Debate and give us an idea when it might be. I make that suggestion in the view that it would relieve our anxiety, and we should be able to tell the people we represent what the Government's intentions are.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I hope we shall have a day given to us for discussion of this matter. In agriculture you have the greatest industry in the State. The embargo question is very much exercising the minds of all agriculturists, and it is a matter on which a decision should be reached one way or the other. It is not merely a matter of seeing deputations, but it is a matter which this House should have an opportunity at an early date of considering and recording an opinion upon it.

Captain ELLIOT: Is it impossible for the Leader of the House to say whether he can give a date before or after Whitsuntide? It is not a case that any of us who are opposed to an alteration of the present law have any intention of shirking debate. We think it rash in the extreme for those who desire this policy to be reversed to challenge a Debate without the presence of their chief protagonist, the Secretary of State for the Colonies. With his presence we shall have difficulty in withstanding them; without him there would be no question about the matter, and this 26 years old agricultural policy of the country would continue as in the past. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can say whether or not he can give a date before Whitsuntide.

It being half-past Eleven, of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKERadjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-after Eleven o'Clock.